The Brief

The Department of Motor Vehicles is on track to share driver’s license and identification data with an outside network despite concerns from immigrant advocates that the information could expose people to deportation.

The California Legislature authorized that sharing in the state budget it passed on Monday, along with a separate transportation measure that laid out some special oversight procedures to protect the data.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the budget and is expected to approve the companion measure, which his administration negotiated with lawmakers.

Lawmakers earlier had refused to approve the data sharing plan until protections were put in place late last week.

The stakes are high for the more than 1 million immigrants who have driver’s licenses. The system records the last five digits of a driver’s Social Security number and uses the placeholder “99999” for people without one. Advocates fear that feeding that information into a national database could expose undocumented Californians to federal immigration enforcement and told CalMatters in April that such a plan amounts to “a betrayal.”

Earlier this year, the governor's office told CalMatters that reporting on the dispute amounted to "manufacturing fear and panic with lies."

The new state budget includes $55 million, which the DMV will use to enable the sharing of California records with the State-to-State Verification Service and SPEX database run by the nonprofit American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA).

State officials have argued that the data sharing is needed to comply with the federal REAL ID Act, warning that if California does not participate, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security could refuse to accept California IDs at airports. They say the system can only be queried for one record at a time using information supplied by an applicant and that bulk searches are not possible.

The new legislation includes additional measures to protect immigrants from the database being misused for federal immigration enforcement. They include asking the attorney general to sue the nonprofit that runs the national database or participating states if they do not stick to the terms of the data sharing; requiring annual public reporting on data requests and any unusual patterns in usage; and directing the DMV to write a monitoring plan, due in draft by February 2027 and in final form by July 2027. It also directs the state auditor to assess compliance with data sharing guardrails starting in 2030.

“The established safeguards limit the information shared to the minimum necessary,” said H.D. Palmer, spokesperson for Newsom’s Department of Finance.

What critics say

But some advocates say the oversight protections do not go far enough.

“The guardrails will not prevent federal or other state law enforcement from obtaining an order requiring (the state-to-state system) to retrieve and disclose data, including in bulk, and requiring (the system) not to disclose that fact,” said Ed Hasbrouck with the civil liberties group the Identity Project.

Ronald Coleman Baeza, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, thanked state lawmakers Monday for "ensuring there are guardrails" around the data sharing program but also urged lawmakers to require an audit before 2030.

"We are disappointed that Social Security numbers will continue to be shared, but we appreciate that there will be a monitoring plan, a stakeholder process in place, and also enforcement and an audit," he said. "There's definitely going to be more work to do to make sure that we do protect the information from Californians in the driver's license database system."

Representatives of the ACLU Cal Action and California Immigrant Policy Center similarly thanked lawmakers for adopting additional protections but expressed concern about the potential impact on the lives of undocumented immigrants of sharing sensitive data with an out-of-state entity.

Sen. Laura Richardson is a Democrat from Inglewood who questioned the data sharing plan earlier this year. In a Senate budget hearing Monday she voiced support for the data protections in the transportation bill. She also urged the state auditor to evaluate data sharing activity before 2030 “given our vulnerability of having that data out there.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters — sign up for their newsletters — and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

California librarians were stunned when a last-minute budget change stripped K-12 schools of a trove of research materials, potentially leaving thousands of students without resources to do reports, projects or homework assignments.

Without notice to schools or librarians, the Legislature last week canceled $5.5 million that pays online fees for the Encyclopedia Britannica, New York Times, PBS videos such as Ken Burns documentaries, scientific journals and thousands of other online materials used by students and teachers. The cut goes into effect on July 1, 2027.

“We had no idea this was coming,” said Greg Lucas, head of the California State Library, which helps oversee the program for California’s 10,000 public schools. “This will have a huge impact on California students.”

The program, called Compass, is an online database of research and curriculum materials that have been vetted by teachers and librarians. Compass is also available through public libraries, but the vast majority of users are at K-12 schools. Since the program launched in 2018, it’s received nearly 1 billion hits.

Students use Compass for classroom assignments as well as for recreation. Many of the materials are available in multiple languages. Among the more popular features are National Geographic Kids; Pebble Go Science, which includes hundreds of science activities for pre-kindergarten through second grade; and Alexander Street, which offers videos of cultural performances such as the Joffrey Ballet and the Royal Shakespeare Company.

Compass is especially important at a time when fewer schools have libraries — and librarians — to help students with research. Although nearly 90% of schools have physical space on campus for books, magazines and other research materials, only about a quarter of those spaces are staffed by librarians. The rest are staffed by volunteers, classified employees or not at all. California ranks 49th nationwide in school librarian staffing, with nearly 10,000 students for each librarian, according to research by the Institute of Museum and Library Services.

Compass is available free to all schools in California. If schools were to subscribe individually to Compass materials, they’d spend more than $216 million annually, according to a State Library report. A typical medium-sized school district might pay $100,000 or more for the services, an expense lower-income districts are less likely to have money for.

Losing the service raises concerns about internet access

Without access to Compass materials, students would likely rely on free resources online. But those materials tend to contain advertisements or track user data, a violation of state student privacy laws. They also are less likely to be vetted for accuracy, a particular danger in the age of artificial intelligence.

“Losing Compass is catastrophic for the state of California,” said Kate MacMillan, library services coordinator for Napa Valley Unified. “This service is a lifeline. I can’t believe the Legislature would let this happen.”

Funding for Compass was in earlier versions of the budget the Legislature debated over the past few months. But the final version eliminated Compass funding after July 1, 2027. Instead, it directs $5 million of the funding toward the state’s new dyslexia screener, and $60,000 for technical support of an online lesson-sharing platform called California Educators Together.

Legislators and staff members on the budget education committees contacted by CalMatters did not comment on why the money was cut.

Meanwhile, librarians are launching an aggressive campaign to save the program. They’re emailing Newsom and the Legislature, and trying to bring attention to the issue.

Connie Williams, a retired school librarian and former head of the California School Library Association, said that losing Compass will exacerbate disparities in the state’s education system. Lower-income schools will lose crucial learning resources, while higher-income schools will be able to pay the subscription costs themselves, without state assistance.

“The disparity will be overwhelmingly glaring,” Williams said. “We’re leaving students at the mercy of whatever is free on the internet.”

It’s especially galling, she said, that this move comes as the state is promoting media and digital literacy in schools. In 2023 California enacted a law requiring schools to teach media literacy in all subjects, with a focus on teaching students to recognize fake news, determine if an information source is trustworthy and generally think critically about what they view and read online.

“We want students to think critically, put away their phones, know how to do research,” Williams said. “And we’re grabbing away some of the best learning tools we have.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

In a sharp rebuke to President Donald Trump, the Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that the Constitution guarantees automatic birthright citizenship to virtually all children born in the United States.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the court's 6-3 opinion.

The decision firmly rejected the executive order that Trump issued on the first day of his second term. It sought to bar citizenship for babies born in the U.S. to parents who either entered the country illegally or who are living and working here legally with temporary visas. The executive order never went into effect because every lower court judge who reviewed it concluded, in the words of one judge, that it was "blatantly unconstitutional."

Trump has long maintained that the Constitution does not guarantee birthright citizenship. But as Chief Justice Roberts observed, the men who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution after the Civil War defined citizenship in broad terms on purpose, rejecting the views of those who wanted to limit citizenship. The resulting language of the amendment says, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

Trump maintained that the provision was meant to apply only to former slaves, but "wasn't meant for the entire world to occupy the United States." That interpretation, however, has not been embraced by the courts or the legal norms of the country for 160 years. Indeed, Chief Justice Roberts' opinion for the court pointed to the court's landmark ruling well over a century ago in the 1898 case of Wong Kim Ark, born in San Francisco in 1873 to Chinese immigrants. Back then, no documentation was required for immigrants entering the United States, and his parents ran a business in San Francisco until they ultimately returned to China. In 1895, their son visited his family in there, but was denied re-entry upon his return to the U.S., on the grounds that he was not a citizen. He challenged that denial and won in the Supreme Court.

By a 6-to-3 vote, the justices interpreted the words, "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," to mean that all children born in the U.S. were automatically granted citizenship — with three limited exceptions, only one of which exists today — for the children of foreign diplomats.

The decision in the Wong Kim Ark case was so widely accepted that even in periods of great hostility to immigrants, the notion of birthright citizenship remained untouchable. So much so that in World War II, when Japanese citizens were held as enemy aliens in detention camps in the United States, their newborn children were automatically granted American citizenship because they were born on U.S. soil. In addition, Congress subsequently codified that legal understanding.

The ACLU's Cecillia Wang, herself a birthright citizen born to Chinese parents, argued the birthright case in April before the Supreme Court. As she put it, the men who wrote the Fourteenth Amendment deliberately chose to confer automatic citizenship on the child, not the parent, the idea being that "in America we do not punish children for the sins of their fathers, but instead we wipe the slate clean. When you're born in this country, we're all American, all the same."

Dissenting from Tuesday's decision were Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito.

This is a developing story and will be updated

Copyright 2026 NPR

The Supreme Court yet again loosened campaign finance restrictions on Tuesday by striking down limits on how much political parties may raise and spend on candidates.

By a 6-to-3 vote along ideological lines, the court ruled the law, which had been enacted in 1974, violates political parties' First Amendment rights. Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote the majority opinion.

At issue in the case was a post-Watergate law that Congress passed to limit the amount of money individuals can give to political parties. The law, the Federal Election Campaign Act, also limited how much money political parties can spend on their candidates. Other types of organizations, like political action committees and Super PACs, have no limits on the amount of money they can raise and spend on elections. But unlike parties, they cannot coordinate with candidates.

Tuesday's decision means that parties get the best of both worlds. They can both coordinate with candidates and raise unlimited funds.

Republicans, including Vice President Vance and the National Republican Senatorial Committee, challenged the law as an unconstitutional violation of political parties' First Amendment right to raise and spend money on their candidates.

Backed by the Trump Justice Department, they contended that the only justification for imposing a fundraising limit on parties is to prevent corruption, but they maintained that there is no evidence that the law has prevented corruption.

This decision overturns a 2001 Supreme Court case that declared the limits on party spending to be constitutional. It's the latest in a series of rulings since then that have unraveled campaign finance regulations.

The saga began in 2010, when the court ruled in Citizens United that corporations have a First Amendment right to unlimited spending on elections. The following year, the court dismantled Arizona's public election financing scheme, which gave money to less-funded candidates in order to equalize spending between politicians. And in 2014, the court struck down limits on how much money an individual can donate in national elections. All of these decisions were ideologically split votes, just like Tuesday's ruling, and in each case, the court overturned the regulations for burdening the First Amendment right to spend on elections.

The practical implications of Tuesday's ruling are unclear. Lawyers for the Democratic Party, who intervened in the case in support of the campaign finance restrictions, argued that they are necessary to prevent quid pro quo corruption. Authorizing unlimited coordinated expenditures would "fundamentally reshape the campaign finance regime," they wrote. "The potential for actual or apparent corruption is obvious."

Further, in previous decisions, the high court cited these anti-corruption protections as reasons why other campaign finance regulations could be rolled back without worry.

But the Republicans who brought the case argued that the risks of corruption are low. "It doesn't make any sense to think of a party as 'corrupting' its candidates," lawyers for the Republicans argued in a brief submitted to the court, "because the very aim of a political party is to influence its candidate's stance."

This is a developing story and will be updated

Copyright 2026 NPR