California’s latest campus-employment bill is now on Gov. Gavin Newsom’s desk. It could open public-college jobs to students without federal work authorization — but a central question about federal law remains unresolved.
For years, California has expanded access to higher education for students who lack lawful immigration status.
Now the state is confronting a different question:
Can those students also compete for jobs on the campuses they attend?
Assembly Bill 713, known as the Opportunity for All Act, would prohibit the University of California, California State University and California Community Colleges from disqualifying a student from employment simply because the student cannot provide proof of federal work authorization, with exceptions for jobs where federal law or a specific grant requires that proof. The enrolled bill text lays out those requirements and the bill’s proposed implementation date.
The Legislature has passed the bill, and it is now before Newsom. If enacted, the current bill requires implementation by Jan. 6, 2027.
But AB 713 is about more than campus jobs.
It is the latest chapter in a legal and policy dispute that began years ago, included a similar bill Newsom vetoed in 2024, and produced a court case that changed the discussion without definitively answering the underlying federal-law question.
What would AB 713 actually do?
The bill would prohibit UC, CSU and California Community Colleges from rejecting a student for a campus job solely because the student cannot provide proof of federal work authorization.
There are two important exceptions.
The requirement for federal work authorization could still apply when:
- federal law requires it; or
- a grant funding the particular position requires it.
The bill also instructs the three public higher-education systems to treat the federal prohibition on employing undocumented noncitizens in 8 U.S.C. §1324a(a) as inapplicable because, under the bill’s legal position, that provision does not apply to state government.
If student employment is considered a “benefit” under another federal law, AB 713 also declares that California is authorizing the benefit under an exception in federal law.
That language is important because AB 713 is not simply asking California colleges to change a hiring policy.
It is asking them to act on a particular interpretation of federal law.
Why is AB 713 back after Newsom vetoed a similar bill?
AB 713 follows Assembly Bill 2586, which Newsom vetoed in September 2024. The governor’s 2024 legislative update lists AB 2586 among the bills he vetoed.
AB 2586 would have imposed a similar rule on UC, CSU and the community colleges. In his veto message, Newsom said the bill raised potential civil and criminal liability for state employees and argued that courts should address the legality of the policy and the underlying legal theory before California proceeded.
That left the central question unresolved:
Could California’s public universities legally employ students who lack federal work authorization?
The 2026 Legislature has now sent substantially the same policy question back to the governor.
But something important happened between the two bills.
A lawsuit involving UC put the university’s hiring policy before the courts.
What happened in the UC court case?
The case, Muñoz v. Regents of the University of California, challenged UC’s exclusion of undocumented students from certain employment opportunities.
In August 2025, the First District Court of Appeal issued an opinion concluding that UC’s policy facially discriminated based on immigration status under California law. The court also concluded that UC had not adequately established that federal law required the policy based on the record before it. The Court of Appeal opinion is available as part of the published 2025 California appellate decisions.
That was significant.
But it did not mean the court ordered UC to immediately hire undocumented students.
And it did not definitively establish that federal employment law permits California public universities to employ undocumented students.
The California Supreme Court had granted review and transferred the case back to the Court of Appeal in December 2024 with directions to issue an order to show cause.
In October 2025, the Supreme Court denied a later petition for review. At the same time, however, it directed that the Court of Appeal’s August 2025 opinion be depublished, meaning it was not to remain part of the Official Appellate Reports as published precedent. The California Supreme Court’s case materials document the court’s proceedings, including the October 2025 conference involving Muñoz.
So it would be inaccurate to say that the California Supreme Court affirmed a published appellate precedent establishing a right for undocumented students to work for UC.
It did not.
The litigation nevertheless remains important because it exposed the competing interpretations of California anti-discrimination law and federal employment law that now sit at the center of AB 713.
Does federal law allow California public universities to hire undocumented students?
That is the unresolved question at the heart of AB 713.
Supporters of the bill rely on a legal theory developed by UCLA immigration and constitutional law scholars.
Their argument is that the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act’s prohibition on employing people without federal work authorization does not apply to state government employers in the same way it applies to employers covered by the federal statute.
The theory focuses on the language Congress used when it enacted the federal employment restrictions and on constitutional principles governing federal regulation of state governments.
That interpretation is contested.
AB 713 would effectively direct California’s public higher-education systems to operate under that interpretation unless federal law specifically requires work authorization for a particular position.
That is why the bill represents a significant legal experiment rather than a routine change in campus hiring rules.
How many students could be affected?
There is no reliable number showing how many students would actually obtain campus jobs if AB 713 becomes law.
One recent estimate cited by CalMatters found that the three public systems together enrolled approximately 60,000 students without legal status in 2023, with most attending community colleges.
That figure describes enrollment.
It does not mean 60,000 students would receive jobs.
Campus employment positions are limited, and AB 713 would create eligibility to compete for covered positions rather than guarantee employment.
That distinction is important for students and families trying to understand what the legislation could actually change.
Why does campus employment matter?
Tuition is only one part of the cost of attending college.
Students also face housing, food, transportation, books, technology and other living expenses.
Undocumented students are generally excluded from federal Pell Grants and federal student loans, although eligible students may receive state financial aid through programs such as the California Dream Act.
That makes employment one part of the financial equation for some students.
Parriva previously examined this broader issue in California Undocumented Students Face New Campus Job Fight, including how campus employment fits into the larger question of college access and affordability.
AB 713 takes that discussion one step further.
It asks whether immigration status alone should prevent an otherwise eligible student from competing for a job at the public college they attend.
Could AB 713 affect federal funding?
This is another area where readers need to separate what is known from what is possible.
The University of California receives billions of dollars in federal support, and university officials and state policymakers have raised concerns about the potential consequences of a conflict with the federal government over employment law. Current reporting has put UC’s annual federal support at roughly $17 billion.
But that does not mean AB 713 would automatically put $17 billion at risk.
The potential loss of federal funding is a possible consequence raised in the policy debate, not an established result of the bill.
Whether federal officials could withhold funding, what funding could be affected and under what legal authority are separate questions.
Those questions have not been resolved.
What happens if Newsom signs AB 713?
The bill would require UC, CSU and California Community Colleges to implement its provisions by Jan. 6, 2027.
But implementation would still involve the legal and institutional questions built into the legislation.
The enrolled bill specifically addresses UC’s constitutional autonomy by providing that the measure applies to UC unless it is found inapplicable, in which case it applies only to the extent the Regents make it applicable through an appropriate resolution.
That means signing the bill would not necessarily make every practical question disappear overnight.
The systems would still have to determine how covered jobs are administered and how the law interacts with federal requirements.
What happens if Newsom vetoes it?
A veto would leave the existing legal and institutional dispute in place.
The Legislature could revisit the issue in a future session, but the timing, language and legal strategy of any future legislation would depend on what happens with AB 713 and the broader federal legal landscape.
There is no basis to assume in advance what lawmakers or universities would do.
For now, the immediate question is whether Newsom will sign or veto the bill. As of Sept. 7, AB 713 remains on his desk; his office has said the governor generally does not comment on legislation while it is pending, and current reporting says he has until the end of September to act.
The question California still has to answer
California has spent years addressing one part of the college-access equation for undocumented students.
AB 540 can allow qualifying students to receive resident tuition treatment.
The California Dream Act can provide a pathway to state financial aid for eligible students.
Campus programs can help students navigate college.
But access to the classroom does not necessarily mean access to every opportunity available inside it.
AB 713 is now testing whether campus employment should be one of those opportunities.
The legislation would create a pathway for undocumented students to compete for covered jobs at California’s public colleges — but it does not guarantee those jobs.
And the court case that changed the legal debate did not settle the federal question that Newsom identified when he vetoed the earlier bill.
That is the most important thing for students, families and colleges to understand:
AB 713 could change California’s campus-employment rules, but whether the state can ultimately enforce that change against conflicting federal law remains an open legal question.
Parriva will continue to follow what happens to the bill and what it means for students across California.
