The Brief

In November, California voters may have to referee a multimillion-dollar battle among Uber, attorneys and doctors. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for anybody who uses the state’s roads and highways.

Uber last fall filed a proposed ballot measure that would cap personal injury lawyers’ contingency fees and limit medical damages for all vehicle crashes in California, even those not involving an Uber. The company paints its effort as a way to rein in attorneys who take advantage of those who get hurt in a crash. Crash survivors often hire attorneys on a contingency basis, meaning the lawyers only get paid if they win the case.

That got attorney groups fired up: They responded by proposing three ballot initiatives that would expand the ride-hailing giant’s liability for passenger injuries; increase its liability for sexual misconduct against riders or drivers; and ban new state laws that interfere with people’s ability to retain lawyers.

Doctors and other medical providers also got organized and formed a political action committee, Providers for Patient Care, last October to oppose Uber’s initiative.

Despite the substantial opposition, legal experts acknowledge Uber’s proposed ballot initiative could appeal to Californians.

“This measure could backfire for Uber, but it’s certainly possible that California voters will approve (the company’s) initiative because it has a ‘bumper sticker quality’ to it,” said Stanford University law professor Nora Engstrom, a litigation expert. She said she has no formal role in the opposition to Uber’s initiative, but she has researched contingency fees’ effects on competition and has written an op-ed opposing the measure.

Engstrom told CalMatters the measure might look good because it seems “unthreatening”; who would oppose crash survivors keeping more of their settlements? But capping contingency fees is equivalent to a price control, and economists generally agree that price controls hurt consumers, she said. She and other lawyers say the initiative could discourage attorneys from taking on cases and helping crash survivors secure compensation for any losses or injuries.

Arriving passengers walk with their luggage as they prepare to board vehicles at the 'LAX-it' ride-hail passenger pickup lot at LAX.

(

Mario Tama

/

Getty Images

)

A very expensive battle

Uber has put about $32.5 million into its effort since last fall, according to campaign finance records. The opposition has committed about $55 million to fight Uber as well as to promote its own competing initiatives. Consumer Attorneys of California, whose members are lawyers who represent consumers, has led the way with $30 million so far, while more than 400 other attorneys and law firms have spent a combined $20 million to fight the Uber initiative and promote their three measures. The medical providers have raised about $5 million so far and are aiming to raise a total of $10 million, said Pamela Lopez, a campaign representative.

As each side collects signatures to try to get their initiatives on the ballot, they have also spent that money on two different TV commercials that aired during the Super Bowl.

The last time Uber spent tens of millions of dollars on a California ballot measure was on Proposition 22 in 2020, when the state’s voters approved a law written by Uber and other gig companies, which allowed them to create a carveout from labor law and continue to treat their drivers and delivery workers as independent contractors instead of employees. Top spender Uber — along with its Postmates subsidiary — funded more than $70 million out of the total $205 million the winning campaign.

Veena Dubal, a law professor at UC Irvine who focuses on labor and opposed Uber’s Prop. 22 five years ago, said: “Uber is trying once again to misuse the democratic process and to disclaim legal responsibility — this time, not just towards their drivers but also towards consumers.”

The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office wrote that if Uber’s ballot measure passes, the state could be on the hook for tens of millions of dollars of increased Medi-Cal costs, such as for health care that the state wouldn’t be able to recover. On the other hand, the state could save tens of millions of dollars a year in court costs because there could be fewer auto accident cases, the LAO wrote.

Uber’s ‘expansive’ measure

Uber’s proposed initiative calls for victims of vehicle crashes to retain 75% of any settlement they receive. In addition, it limits how much can be awarded for medical expenses and raises the burden of proof for recovering them. For liens and future medical expenses, the limit would be 125% of the Medicare reimbursement rate for a service, and 170% of the Medi-Cal reimbursement rate. The measure would also ban law firms from referring clients to a health care provider in which they have a financial interest.

The company says it’s necessary to stop lawyers from inflating crash victims’ medical costs then pocketing a big chunk of a settlement. Uber has sued lawyers and medical practices in California, New York and Florida over such allegations.

“Californians deserve a system that prioritizes victims over ambulance lawyers, and that’s exactly what this measure does,” said Nathan Click, a spokesperson for Uber’s campaign, in a statement.

Opponents of the measure said that if it qualifies for the November ballot and voters approve it, accident victims may not be able to sue for the compensation they deserve because lawyers will not have enough incentive to take on their cases if they know they will get only 25% of the settlement — or less — as opposed to the average 33% or more.

“Uber wrote it to be expansive, to keep victims from finding attorneys,” said Doug Saeltzer, president of the Consumer Attorneys of California, which is spearheading the opposition to Uber’s initiative and proposed the competing ballot measures.

Lawyers and Uber are also battling over legalese about who would be responsible for paying medical bills after a crash. The lawyers say Uber’s initiative would require medical expenses to get paid from the attorney’s share of the settlement. Uber says the medical bills are likely to get paid by the client.

The way Saeltzer and other opponents of the measure read it is that medical expenses from a vehicle accident must come out of an attorney’s 25% share of a settlement. Jamie Court, president of consumer advocacy group Consumer Watchdog, said it’s because of the language that a victim must retain 75% of the total amount recovered, and this part: “Medical expenses, including liens incurred by the automobile accident victim… are not deductible disbursements or costs.”

Uber spokesperson John Finley told CalMatters in an email that the company strongly disputes the lawyers’ interpretation. He said medical bills are likely to be paid by the client, “which is why the client needs a guarantee that they’ll have enough to pay those bills instead of being left with little to no portion of their recovery.”

Engstrom, the Stanford law professor, said: “No doubt, the language is pretty convoluted… If Uber wanted to create a clear medical bill carveout, it surely could have. They have lots of smart lawyers. You have to wonder why they didn’t.”

Changing medical-cost recovery

Mary-Beth Moylan is a University of the Pacific law professor and an expert on California initiatives. When she read that Uber’s measure also proposes limits for medical costs for crash survivors, she said: “I mean, what?”

Moylan said the many details in Uber’s initiative could have unintended consequences. “This is the danger of this particularized policy-making by initiative,” she said.

Lopez, the Providers for Patient Care representative, said uninsured or underinsured survivors of vehicle crashes may not get the medical care they need because the limits mean providers may decline to treat some patients out of fear they will not be reimbursed for most of the costs.

“This is an attempt by Uber to get out of paying for patient care,” Lopez said, adding that such care could be needed long term and that limiting what a responsible party would pay would affect those without health insurance. That could help drive up medical costs for everyone else, she said.

“This will affect you, me, anyone who’s ever injured in an auto accident in California,” Lopez said.

Uber based its proposed limits on a state law that caps payments to out-of-network providers at 125% of Medicare reimbursement rates, said Uber spokesperson Zahid Arab in an email.

“The current system creates incentives to overbill and overtreat auto accident victims, which increases legal costs and raises premiums statewide,” Arab said.

Because it would be a constitutional amendment, Uber’s measure requires a higher threshold to qualify for the ballot: more than 874,000 signatures by June 8. By the first week of February, it had collected at least 25% of that number, according to the California Secretary of State.

Lawyers’ initiatives

Two of the attorney groups’ proposed measures would treat Uber and other ride-hailing providers like other common transportation carriers such as taxis, buses and trains.

One initiative would expand Uber and other ride-hailing companies’ liability for sexual misconduct against riders or drivers. It would require additional background checks for drivers; monthly reports of sexual assaults and misconduct; disclosure of a driver safety-risk assessment score based on the driver’s history of sexual misconduct to customers; and more. As an initiative statute, it needs to collect 546,651 signatures by July 1 to get on the ballot and reached the 25% threshold a couple of weeks ago.

Another measure would expand the ride-hailing giant’s liability for passenger and public injuries. It would hold the companies responsible for harm to their riders and the public, regardless of the classification of drivers as independent contractors.

The third measure would prohibit new laws that interfere with people hiring lawyers of their choice. It would be a constitutional amendment, and would void Uber’s initiative if both that one and this one are approved by voters.

Uber by the numbers

Uber’s top executives have told investors during their most recent earnings calls that they expect the company’s lower insurance costs to help drive higher revenue growth. The San Francisco-based company brought in more than $14 billion in revenue last year. The executives have mentioned “legal abuse” and their legislative efforts in different states to drive Uber’s legal and insurance costs down.

The company has tried to enact measures similar to the one it’s pushing in California elsewhere. Last year, the Nevada Supreme Court found that Uber’s description of the effects of a measure that would have capped attorneys’ contingency fees in civil cases to 20% was “misleading and confusing.” The company and lawyers in that state later reached a deal on a bill related to insurance liability.

In California, Uber recently won a bid to reduce its costs by going not to the voters but through the Legislature. Last year, Gov. Gavin Newsom signed a bill that reduced how much insurance ride-hailing companies are supposed to carry for crashes involving uninsured and underinsured motorists, from $1 million to $60,000 per person and $300,000 per incident. State Sen. Chris Cabaldon, the Napa Democrat who authored the law, said he wanted to help lower fares for rides.

Fares for Uber rides in California have generally risen in the past several years. From 2019 to 2025, the average Uber fare in the state rose from $14.11 to $27.15, according to Gridwise, which makes an app that allows gig workers to track their earnings and expenses. Gridwise says its data encompasses more than 800 million trips and more than $8.5 billion in tracked driver earnings.

That aligns with the trajectory of the data from Obi, an app maker that allows users to compare ride-hailing and taxi fares, which shows that from 2021 to 2025, the average Uber fare in California rose from $26.96 to $29.93. Obi’s data is based on information it collects from its 1 million users.

The number of Californians without health insurance could double from 2 million today to 4 million by 2030, according to a report from the state Legislative Analyst's Office. It’s the state budget office’s preliminary attempt to quantify how federal legislation known as the “One Big Beautiful Bill” will reshape healthcare access statewide.

The One Big Beautiful Bill is driving nearly 90% of the projected coverage loss, according to the LAO report. It's mostly Medi-Cal enrollees who are expected to be dropped when new work requirements take effect in 2027. The remaining 10% are largely people leaving the state's health insurance marketplace, Covered California, after enhanced federal premium subsidies expired last year.

What's the impact to coverage?

L.A. County officials estimate that recent Medi-Cal changes could put coverage at risk for hundreds of thousands of residents and cost the health departments about $800 million a year. A UC Berkeley Labor Center analysis projected more than 1 million Medi-Cal enrollees could lose coverage by 2028.

The LAO report also warns that county indigent health programs for uninsured residents will soon face a surge in demand they’re not prepared to meet. Those county programs had enrolled about 850,000 people statewide before the federal government expanded Medicaid coverage in 2014. Total enrollment is currently 10,000 statewide, but the trend is going to reverse, according to the report.

What's the impact to health-care providers?

More uninsured people means hospitals and clinics provide more services without getting paid. The LAO projects that uncompensated care costs at hospitals could grow by several billion dollars statewide by 2030. Clinics face steeper losses because they run on smaller budgets and depend more heavily on Medi-Cal revenue.

The LAO also projects premiums on the individual health insurance market will rise as healthier people drop coverage.

What are proposals to help?

The LAO itself doesn’t recommend new spending and instead urges lawmakers to track what happens to hospitals, clinics and county programs before taking action. But both L.A. County and state officials are pushing tax efforts to combat federal cuts.

L.A. County voters will decide June 2 on Measure ER, a half-cent sales tax that would generate about $1 billion a year for hospitals and clinics. ANovember statewide ballot initiative would impose a one-time 5% tax on Californians worth over $1 billion and direct 90% of proceeds to Medi-Cal.

California regulators say State Farm has illegally delayed, underpaid and denied claims from policyholders affected by the 2025 L.A. fires — something fire survivors have said for months.

The California Department of Insurance announced Monday that it has taken the first step in the process to bring the allegations to a public hearing before an administrative judge. That could result in the state’s largest home insurer paying up to about $4 million in penalties, and suspension of its license for up to a year, meaning it could not write new policies in California during that time.

“Our investigation found that State Farm delayed, underpaid, and buried policyholders in red tape at the worst moment of their lives,” state Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara said in a statement.

The state analyzed 220 randomly selected claims — out of more than 11,000 filed with State Farm in response to last year’s fires — and found hundreds of violations in more than half them. Attorneys for the state called it a “troubling pattern” in their filing.

State Farm denied the allegations and called the state’s move “politically motivated” in a lengthy statement posted to its website.

Every Fire Survivors Network, a coalition representing thousands of L.A. fire survivors, pressured the state for months to investigate State Farm’s handling of wildfire claims.

Joy Chen, who co-founded the group after her home was damaged in the Eaton Fire, said the state’s action is far from enough.

“It’s just very disappointing to see our regulator issue a report that shows his own failures over the last 16 months,” she told LAist.

Only a few dozen homes have been rebuilt so far in both Altadena and Pacific Palisades since the fires destroyed more than 16,000 buildings, mostly homes, in those communities and nearby areas.

A survey by the nonprofit Department of Angels last year found that nearly three-quarters of L.A. fire survivors reported delays, denials and low payouts of their claims across all insurers.

“What we need is for all State Farm contracts to be enforced so that Los Angeles families can have the money that we need to move forward with getting back home,” Chen said.

The state’s alleged violations carry a fine of up to $5,000, and up to $10,000 if the violations are found to be willful. The case will be heard by a state administrative law judge, who will provide a recommendation to Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lara on a possible penalty.

The Insurance Department said people with homeowners policies from any insurer can report problems with their claims at insurance.ca.gov or by calling (800) 927-4357.

Yes, you could put a screen in your backyard and call up your friends to watch a particularly compelling World Cup game after the tournament begins June 12.

But FIFA is turning each game into a public celebration, sponsoring 10 outdoor Fan Zone watch parties with large viewing screens across L.A. County through the final on July 19.

Details were released on Monday, including locations, dates and prices.

The Fan Zones open in a staggered schedule from one day to four days each, starting with the Original Farmers Market on June 18 - 21, and then popping up across the region until the glorious end on July 19 in downtown Burbank.

Ticket prices range from free (City of Downey, Union Station L.A., “Magic” Johnson Park, Whittier Narrows) to over $300 for a VIP experience with a viewing lounge and a concert at the downtown Burbank Fan Zone on the day of the World Cup final match on July 19.

Fan Zone kick off

At the first Fan Zone, at The Original Farmers Market from June 18 for four days, entry will cost you $5 per day or $17 for all four days. Kids age 3 and under are free. (FIFA says the zones are family friendly).

You’ll be able to see four matches there each of the four days, including Mexico vs. South Korea on June 18 at 6 p.m. and USA vs. Australia on June 19 at noon.

FIFA World Cup 2026 scarves are displayed during the ribbon cutting for the LAX/Metro Transit Center rail and bus public transportation station at LAX on June 6, 2025.

(

Patrick T. Fallon

/

Getty Images

)

You won’t have to squint to find your favorite player or catch the goals. The Farmer’s Market will include a 30-foot viewing screen as well as a 15-foot secondary screen to watch the games. There will be beer gardens, and you can purchase food from the Market's dozens of establishments.

Other Fan Zones

The West Harbor L.A. Fan Zone will give people an opportunity to experience the newest major development along the San Pedro waterfront, a 42-acre waterfront district that’s been years in the making.

The Union Station L.A. Fan Zone on June 25 is free and includes match viewing, music, food, and immersive fan experiences, featuring live DJs.

The final Fan Zone opens July 18 and 19 in downtown Burbank for the World Cup’s last two matches. FIFA says it’ll include “an adjacent international street fair filled with global flavors and cultural experiences.” Tickets range from $25 to over $300

The full list of the Fan Zones is here.

This of course, isn’t the only opportunity to watch World Cup matches with groups of people in SoCal. The city of L.A. will host its own watch parties.

Up against a massive court backlog that can drag their cases for years, asylum seekers face steep costs when pursuing their dreams of college in California.

Asylum-seeking students in California often face a double blow: they are charged higher tuition for nonresidents and excluded from most financial aid. For students and their families, this can mean thousands of dollars paid out of pocket and years of financial stress as their immigration cases remain unresolved.

Before establishing residency, asylum-seeking students are charged non-resident rates, which are about three times what state residents pay for public universities and roughly eight to 13 times more for community colleges, depending on the district.

All asylum seekers are disqualified from federal financial aid. The few who qualify for California’s state aid may never know their options, or face hurdles in obtaining it due to a patchwork of financial aid processes.

The state’s higher education systems are not mandated to track asylum seekers, making state budget impacts nearly unquantifiable during legislative attempts to expand financial aid eligibility.

“I only see them struggling,” said Eric Cline, social services program director at OASIS Legal Services, which supports LGBTQ+ asylum seekers across the Bay Area and Central Valley. “I’m always surprised (when) a few clients tell me 'I just graduated from college.’ I think, ‘Wow, how did that happen?’”

Policy changes stoke uncertainty for asylum seekers

Asylum seeking is one of the least-protected immigration statuses in the U.S. Asylum seekers, who’ve fled their home countries fearing persecution and are asking the U.S. for protection, differ from refugees, whose status is granted before they enter the country. Asylum seekers apply upon arriving in the U.S.

Applicants can stay as their cases remain pending for years, though experts say the Trump administration is expediting deportations for numerous asylum seekers and ending cases before they can receive a full hearing.

As of February 2026, a little over 2.3 million immigrants are awaiting asylum hearings nationwide, according to Syracuse University’s Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse, which tracks federal activity. The most recent data shows California alone had about 169,000 pending asylum cases in its immigration courts by the end of 2023 — the second-largest backlog of any state. The average wait for an asylum hearing in California was 1,412 days at that time.

The Trump administration paused asylum cases in November, creating even further delays. The administration has now allowed cases to resume for applicants from all but 40 countries. In the San Francisco immigration court system, which is popular among asylum seekers due to higher acceptance rates, a combination of firings by the Trump administration, retirements and relocations whittled the 21 immigration judges to two, according to reporting in Mission Local. Left behind is a caseload of nearly 119,000 immigration cases, the highest of any immigration court in California.

President Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” also established new fees for asylum seekers, placing additional pressure on an already low-income population. Applicants must now pay an initial $100 application fee plus $100 per year while their case is pending, $550 for a work permit, and $745 each year to renew the permit. In addition, a new rule proposed by the Department of Homeland Security would effectively end the ability of asylum seekers to obtain work permits at all.

Royce Hall on the UCLA campus

(

Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times via Getty Imag

/

Los Angeles Times

)

As they await a decision, asylum seekers are excluded from federal aid and some state financial aid programs, including Cal Grants under California law.

For one asylum seeker, Carol, being ineligible for financial aid meant she had to take time off from school to work to make ends meet. CalMatters is not using her full name because she fears speaking publicly may jeopardize her asylum case.

Carol did speak before the Assembly Higher Education Committee in 2023 urging lawmakers to pass AB 888, which would have expanded Cal Grant eligibility to certain asylum seekers. The bill ultimately did not pass.

She said she arrived in the United States at 17 and had spent more than six years waiting for her case to move through immigration courts, a period during which she said she was ineligible for financial aid.

“I’ve had to delay my educational journey several times, including going part-time and even taking a semester off from school to work,” Carol told lawmakers.

Without access to aid, she said she experienced homelessness, couch surfing and at one point slept on a mattress topper on a hardwood floor because she could not afford a bed. She worked multiple jobs at a time, skipped meals and attended class without the required course materials.

Her story, she said, was not new. Carol told the committee that four years earlier her brother had testified with a nearly identical experience on behalf of a previous bill that was ultimately vetoed, a cycle she argued could have been prevented.

“Had California taken action then, I wouldn’t have had to face the harrowing experiences that I shared with you today,” she said.

Despite the barriers, Carol graduated from Cal State Long Beach and worked as a caseworker with the International Rescue Committee, helping resettle refugees and asylum seekers. She told lawmakers she hopes to pursue a law degree and become an international human rights attorney.

The narrow path to college aid for asylum-seeking students

Many asylum seekers arrive eager to continue studies they began abroad, but quickly run into what Cline calls “a brick wall."

“All of our clients are low-income … they’re almost never eligible for generalized financial aid,” he said. “When you take away the financial aid aspect, it makes (college) pretty inaccessible.”

For California residents, annual undergraduate tuition is $15,588 at the University of California, $6,838 at the California State University and about $1,380 for 30 units at a community college. Students classified as non-residents — including some asylum seekers before establishing residency — can pay $54,858 at a University of California, about $20,968 at a Cal State before campus-based fees, and roughly $10,140 to $13,560 for 30 units at a community college, depending on the district. These figures do not include campus-based fees, housing or living expenses.

Even when students do manage to establish residency, the cost is still steep. For the many asylum seekers who arrive in the United States as adults, they may not have attended a California school previously, barring them from qualifying for state financial aid.

AB 540, the 2001 law that exempts undocumented students from paying non-resident tuition, only applies if the student attended a California high school or community college for three years.

Those who qualify through AB 540 can fill out the California Dream Act Application for state financial aid, such as Cal Grants, university system-specific grants, state loans, and the state’s middle class scholarship.

The application process can still be confusing for asylum seekers whose status is not fully accounted for in the design of the application. For example, asylum seekers often have Social Security numbers for work authorization, but affirming so while answering the financial aid pre-screening questions leads to undetermined eligibility because the questions don’t take into account the nuances of applying as an asylum seeker.

Stickers and flyers on a table in the Undocumented Community Center at the College of San Mateo in San Mateo, on Nov. 28, 2023. At this center, undocumented students can access financial and legal aid as well as guidance in navigating grant applications.

(

Amaya Edwards

/

CalMatters

)

Asylum seekers often require extra help from financial aid counselors, but even counselors may not know how to help navigate eligibility rules. Students often wind up seeking help from undocumented student resource centers on public campuses, which are designed to help students who lack legal residency and those from mixed-status families find aid and academic support.

Kaveena Singh, the director of immigration legal services at the East Bay Sanctuary Covenant, which provides legal services to low-income immigrants, noted that she herself has written letters to financial aid offices to help explain the in-between nature of the few asylum-seeking students she has served.

As an asylum-seeking student in his mid-20s, L. ended up qualifying for state financial aid through AB 540. However, he misunderstood for six years exactly what aid he qualified for. L. wished to withhold his name and the names of the institutions he’s attended for fear of negative impacts on his pending asylum case.

Initially, community college didn’t cost him anything — but when he transferred to a large four-year university, the cost of college soared. He went to his university's financial aid office for help so often that all the staff there knew his name. It was a "big relief” when he was finally able to successfully fill out the California Dream Act Application, and obtain financial aid for his summer and fall quarters.

L.'s asylum case has been pending for nine years. He, his dad, mom and younger brother arrived in the United States in the winter of 2016, claiming asylum under fear of political retribution. His father organized political assemblies in China, and his mother was forced to have an abortion under the one-child policy.

“I just wish I could go home and visit family and friends and catch up for a good few weeks in the summer here and there to reconnect with my past,” L. said. “It's like there's two separate lives, like two entities being artificially cut.”

L. worked throughout high school and college, and worried about affording school.

Most days, the combination of family trauma and the limbo of waiting for his case means L. survives through “constant compartmentalization.”

In the meantime, he tries to carry on — he studies politics, and is interested in international relations and human rights.

"As rough as all that's happened, the silver lining is that one day hopefully I get a passport and a green card," L. said. "To help other people avoid such a hassle will be just as fulfilling for me."

Previous legislative efforts have failed

Legislative bills to extend state financial aid eligibility to asylum-seeking students have been introduced at least twice in recent years but have failed.

One attempt came in 2019, when Sen. Ben Allen, a Democrat from El Segundo, introduced SB 296, a bill that would have extended Cal Grant eligibility to students with pending asylum applications. The measure passed the Legislature with some bipartisan support, but was vetoed by Gov. Gavin Newsom, who said that it would "impose costs on the General Fund that must be weighed in the annual budget process."

“That was frustrating, but I understood it,” Allen told CalMatters. “The real issue is that we don’t have good data. Our schools don’t track asylum seekers, so we can’t easily calculate the cost.”

UC data on asylum-seeking students is protected due to privacy policies, according to Stett Holbrook, a UC spokesperson. The Cal State system reports it has less than 500 students with "asylum status," which includes both those who have an asylum granted and asylum seekers, according to Cal State spokesperson Amy Bentley-Smith. The numbers are self-reported during the admissions process.

In spring 2025, 13,507 students self-identified as “refugee/asylee” across the California Community Colleges — up from 11,537 the prior semester — per the CCC DataMart. The data does not include a category for just asylum seekers. Students can self-identify their immigration status while applying, but asylum seekers are not specifically tracked, according to the college system’s spokesperson Melissa Villarin.

Four years after SB 296 failed, Democrat Sabrina Cervantes — then representing Riverside in the Assembly and now as a state senator — revived the proposal through AB 888, introduced in 2023. Like Allen’s earlier bill, AB 888 sought to make Cal Grants accessible to students with pending asylum applications by creating a direct eligibility pathway outside the AB 540 residency requirements. The bill passed the Assembly unanimously but was held in the Senate Appropriations Committee last September, effectively ending its chances for the year.

Cervantes declined an interview with CalMatters. “My Assembly Bill 888 would have created a new pathway for pending asylum seekers in California to apply for Cal Grant financial aid in pursuit of their higher education,” Cervantes wrote in a statement.

Newsom’s office declined to say whether he would support a future version of the proposal, pointing instead to his brief 2019 veto message.

“There’s nervousness around anything that involves new expenses," Allen said. “... We’re going to have to spend some time seeing what information we can get with regards to better data to get better estimated costs. I think that will help to better inform the conversation."

Andrea Baltodano and Chrissa Olson are contributors with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.

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