Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed California’s campus-employment bill for undocumented students for the second time in two years. The legal question behind the fight remains unresolved.
Gov. Gavin Newsom has vetoed Assembly Bill 713, blocking legislation that would have allowed undocumented students to compete for many jobs at California’s public colleges and universities.
It is the second time Newsom has rejected substantially similar legislation.
In 2024, he vetoed AB 2586, citing potential civil and criminal liability for state employees and saying courts should first resolve the legal theory behind the policy. The California Legislature later approved AB 713, but Newsom vetoed it again on Sept. 20, 2026.
What makes the second veto important is what happened between the two bills.
A court case challenged the University of California’s policy barring undocumented students from many campus jobs. The litigation changed the state-law discussion, but it did not settle the federal question at the center of AB 713.
That leaves California in essentially the same place on the biggest question:
Can the state’s public colleges employ undocumented students who cannot provide federal work authorization?
AB 713, known as the Opportunity for All Act, would have prohibited the University of California, California State University and California Community Colleges from disqualifying a student from employment solely because the student could not provide proof of federal work authorization.
There were exceptions.
The requirement could still apply when:
- federal law requires proof of work authorization; or
- a grant funding the particular position requires it.
The enrolled bill also directed the three public higher-education systems to treat the federal prohibition on employing undocumented noncitizens as inapplicable to state government. It would have required implementation by Jan. 6, 2027.
So AB 713 was not simply a campus hiring-policy change.
It was also an attempt to establish California’s legal interpretation of federal immigration law.
Why Newsom vetoed it again
Newsom’s 2026 veto message returns to the same fundamental concern he raised in 2024.
In his latest message, Newsom said he remains concerned about potential civil and criminal liability for state employees and argued that federal courts should resolve the legal theory behind the legislation before California proceeds. He also said his concerns about unintended consequences have grown.
That is significant because Newsom’s position has not simply been that campus employment for undocumented students is undesirable.
His documented objection has focused on whether California can legally move ahead without first resolving the federal-law question.
In his official 2024 veto message for AB 2586, Newsom similarly wrote that the potential consequences, including potential civil and criminal liability for state employees, made it critical for courts to address the legality of the policy and its underlying legal theory before proceeding. California Senate Judiciary Committee — AB 713 analysis
Two years later, California tried again.
Newsom said no again.
What changed since the first veto?
A major development was the lawsuit Muñoz v. Regents of the University of California.
A student and a university professor challenged UC’s policy preventing undocumented students from being considered for certain on-campus employment.
The case raised two related but distinct questions:
Did UC’s policy violate California’s protections against employment discrimination based on immigration status?
And:
Does federal law require UC to exclude students who lack federal work authorization?
The California First District Court of Appeal ruled for the plaintiffs under California law and ordered UC to reconsider its policy. But the court did not decide whether the federal employment statute actually applies to state government. The California Senate Judiciary Committee’s 2026 analysis specifically notes that distinction.
The California Supreme Court later denied review.
That did not turn the case into a definitive ruling that California’s public universities may employ undocumented students regardless of federal law.
The federal question remained open. California Senate Judiciary Committee — AB 713 analysis
That detail is crucial to understanding why AB 713 came back to the Legislature and why Newsom says the underlying legal question still matters.
The legal theory behind AB 713 focuses on the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, including the federal prohibition on employers knowingly hiring people who lack authorization to work.
Supporters of the bill argue that the federal law does not apply to state government employers in the same way it applies to other employers.
The California Senate Judiciary Committee’s analysis says that question has not been decided by a court and describes the legal theory as relying on federalism and states’ traditional authority over state government employment.
AB 713 would have instructed California’s public higher-education systems to operate on that interpretation.
That is why the bill carried a larger legal consequence than its relatively simple description — allowing undocumented students to apply for campus jobs might suggest.
Why campus jobs matter
For a college student, a campus job can provide more than a paycheck.
It can provide:
- income for food, housing and transportation;
- work experience;
- professional contacts;
- research opportunities;
- experience related to a student’s field of study; and
- a way to earn money while remaining connected to school.
For undocumented students, the issue can be particularly significant because they generally do not have federal employment authorization and face restrictions on federal financial aid.
California has created state-level financial-aid pathways for eligible undocumented students, but financial aid does not eliminate the cost of attending college.
Parriva previously examined that broader problem in its AB 713 explainer, before the Legislature sent the bill to Newsom.
The second veto now changes the question.
It is no longer whether Newsom will decide.
He has decided.
The question is what happens to the unresolved legal and policy fight after the veto.
How many students could be affected?
The California Senate Judiciary Committee’s analysis estimated that approximately 82,933 undocumented university students were enrolled in California.
That number should not be interpreted as the number of students who would have received campus jobs.
AB 713 would not have guaranteed employment.
Campus positions are limited, and some jobs would still have been subject to federal requirements or grant restrictions.
The number does, however, illustrate the size of the student population potentially affected by the policy.
The court ruling did not answer everything
This is one of the easiest parts of the story to misunderstand.
The UC lawsuit produced an important ruling under California employment-discrimination law.
But that did not establish that federal law permits state universities to hire undocumented students.
The California Senate Judiciary Committee summarized the distinction directly: the appellate court found UC’s policy facially discriminatory and ordered UC to reconsider it, but did not make a finding on whether the federal employment statute applies to state government.
That unresolved question is precisely what Newsom pointed to in his vetoes.
So the legal story is not:
Court says undocumented students can work at UC; Newsom refuses to follow the ruling.
It is more complicated:
Court found a problem with UC’s policy under California law, federal work-authorization question remained unresolved, Legislature attempted to establish a statewide policy, Newsom vetoed it again.
What AB 713 would not have done
Even if Newsom had signed the bill, AB 713 would not have:
- given undocumented students federal work authorization;
- changed their federal immigration status;
- guaranteed them campus employment;
- made every campus job available to them;
- overridden federal requirements applying to a particular position; or
- changed federal financial-aid rules.
Its central change was narrower:
California’s public colleges would generally have been prohibited from rejecting a student from employment solely because the student could not provide federal work authorization, subject to the bill’s exceptions.
What the veto means now
AB 713 will not become law in its current form.
That means the proposed Jan. 6, 2027 implementation date no longer applies.
The new statewide employment rule will not take effect through this bill.
For undocumented students, that means AB 713 will not create the new campus-employment pathway lawmakers approved.
For California’s public colleges, the underlying employment policies and federal-law questions remain.
And for the Legislature, the issue is not necessarily finished.
California lawmakers could revisit the issue in a future session, but whether they do, and what approach they take, will depend on the legal and political circumstances at that time.
The evidence: What we know
FACT: Newsom vetoed AB 713 on Sept. 20, 2026.
FACT: Newsom vetoed substantially similar legislation, AB 2586, in 2024. California Governor’s 2024 legislative update
FACT: AB 713 would have covered UC, CSU and California Community Colleges. California Legislative Information — AB 713
FACT: The bill contained exceptions for positions where federal law or a grant required proof of work authorization.
FACT: The UC litigation resulted in a ruling that UC’s policy violated California employment-discrimination protections, while leaving the federal-law question unresolved. California Senate Judiciary Committee — AB 713 analysis
FACT: Newsom’s stated concern is that the federal legal question should be resolved before California proceeds.
What the evidence cannot tell us
The veto does not tell us how many students would have obtained campus jobs under AB 713.
It does not establish that the federal government would have successfully challenged California if the bill had become law.
It does not establish that the legal theory behind AB 713 is invalid.
And it does not tell us whether another version of the legislation will return.
What the veto does establish is that Newsom has rejected the policy twice while maintaining that the underlying federal legal question needs to be resolved before California proceeds.
Why the second veto matters
AB 713 is not simply another bill that failed at the Governor’s desk.
It is the latest chapter in a dispute that has now moved through the Legislature, the University of California, the state courts and back to the Governor.
In 2024, Newsom said California needed legal clarity before proceeding.
The Legislature tried again in 2026.
The courts had addressed part of the dispute, but not the federal question.
And Newsom vetoed the bill again.
For undocumented students, the practical result is clear:
AB 713 will not create a new statewide pathway to campus employment.
But the larger question remains open:
Can California’s public colleges employ undocumented students without federal work authorization?
Newsom has now said twice that California should wait for the courts to answer that question.
The Legislature has now said twice that it wants California to move forward.
The next chapter may be decided outside the Legislature.
