SB 48: Educational equity: discrimination prevention coordinators.
- Session Year: 2025-2026
- House: Senate
- Latest Version Date: 2025-10-07
Current Status:
Passed
(2025-10-07: Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 429, Statutes of 2025.)
Introduced
In Committee
Awaiting First Chamber Vote
Passed First Chamber
In Committee
Awaiting Second Chamber Vote
Passed Second Chamber
Enacted
Existing law states the policy of the State of California is to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other specified characteristic, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. AB 715 of the 202526 Regular Session proposes to, among other things, (1) establish the Office of Civil Rights, under the administration of the Government Operations Agency, with the purpose of working directly with local educational agencies to prevent and address discrimination and bias, as specified, and (2) state the intent of the Legislature to enact future legislation to establish coordinators to be employed within the Office of Civil Rights to prevent and address discrimination and bias.
This bill would require the Office of Civil Rights to employ a Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, and an LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator. The bill would require each of the coordinators to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
This bill would make the operation of its provisions contingent upon the enactment of AB 715 of the 202526 Regular Session.
Existing law states the policy of the State of California is to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other specified characteristic, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. AB 715 of the 202526 Regular Session proposes to, among other things, (1) establish the Office of Civil Rights, under the administration of the Government Operations Agency, with the purpose of working directly with local educational agencies to prevent and address discrimination and bias, as specified, and (2) state the intent of the Legislature to enact future legislation to establish coordinators to be employed within the Office of Civil Rights to prevent and address discrimination and bias.
This bill would require the Office of Civil Rights to employ a Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, and an LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator. The bill would require each of the coordinators to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
This bill would make the operation of its provisions contingent upon the enactment of AB 715 of the 202526 Regular Session.
Existing law states the policy of the State of California is to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other specified characteristic, equal rights and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. AB 715 of the 202526 Regular Session proposes to, among other things, (1) establish the Office of Civil Rights, under the administration of the Government Operations Agency, with the purpose of working directly with local educational agencies to prevent and address discrimination and bias, as specified, and (2) state the intent of the Legislature to enact future legislation to establish coordinators to be employed within the Office of Civil Rights to prevent and address discrimination and bias.
This bill would require the Office of Civil Rights to employ a Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, and an LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator. The bill would require each of the coordinators to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
This bill would make the operation of its provisions contingent upon the enactment of AB 715 of the 202526 Regular Session.
Existing law prohibits, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state- or federally supported educational program, school officials and employees of a school district, county office of education, or charter school from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of pupils or their family members.This bill would prohibit school districts, county offices of education, or charter schools and their personnel, to the extent possible, from granting permission to an immigration authority to access the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite, producing a pupil for questioning by an immigration authority at a schoolsite, or consenting to a search of any kind of the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite by an immigration authority, unless the immigration authority presents a valid judicial warrant or court order. The bill would require a local educational agency and its personnel, when presented with a valid judicial warrant or court order to carry out the above-described actions, to (1) request valid identification and a written statement of purpose from the immigration authority and retain copies of those documents and (2), as early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request and advise the immigration authority that the local educational agency administrator is required to provide direction before access to the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite or pupil may be granted. The bill would require a local educational agency and its personnel, if an immigration authority does not present a valid judicial warrant or court order, to (1), as early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request, (2) deny the immigration authority access to the nonpublic areas of the schoolsite, and (3) make a reasonable effort to have the denial witnessed and documented. The bill would also prohibit a local educational agency and its personnel from disclosing or providing, in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil, pupils family and household, school employee, or teacher to an immigration authority without a valid judicial warrant or court order directing the local educational agency or its personnel to do so. The bill would also require the Attorney General to publish model policies to assist K12 schools in responding to immigration issues pursuant to the above-described requirements. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.This bill would declare its provisions are severable.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.Existing law prohibits, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state- or federally supported educational program, school officials and employees of a school district, county office of education, or charter school from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of pupils or their family members.
This bill would prohibit school districts, county offices of education, or charter schools and their personnel, to the extent possible, from granting permission to an immigration authority to access the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite, producing a pupil for questioning by an immigration authority at a schoolsite, or consenting to a search of any kind of the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite by an immigration authority, unless the immigration authority presents a valid judicial warrant or court order. The bill would require a local educational agency and its personnel, when presented with a valid judicial warrant or court order to carry out the above-described actions, to (1) request valid identification and a written statement of purpose from the immigration authority and retain copies of those documents and (2), as early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request and advise the immigration authority that the local educational agency administrator is required to provide direction before access to the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite or pupil may be granted. The bill would require a local educational agency and its personnel, if an immigration authority does not present a valid judicial warrant or court order, to (1), as early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request, (2) deny the immigration authority access to the nonpublic areas of the schoolsite, and (3) make a reasonable effort to have the denial witnessed and documented. The bill would also prohibit a local educational agency and its personnel from disclosing or providing, in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil, pupils family and household, school employee, or teacher to an immigration authority without a valid judicial warrant or court order directing the local educational agency or its personnel to do so. The bill would also require the Attorney General to publish model policies to assist K12 schools in responding to immigration issues pursuant to the above-described requirements. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
This bill would declare its provisions are severable.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law prohibits, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state- or federally supported educational program, school officials and employees of a school district, county office of education, or charter school from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of pupils or their family members.
This bill would prohibit school districts, county offices of education, or charter schools and their personnel personnel, to the extent possible, from granting permission to an immigration authority to access the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite, producing a pupil for questioning by an immigration authority at a schoolsite, or consenting to a search of any kind at of the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite by an immigration authority, unless the immigration authority presents a valid judicial warrant or court order. The bill would require a local educational agency and its personnel, when presented with a valid judicial warrant or court order to carry out the above-described actions, to (1) request valid identification and a written statement of purpose from the immigration authority and retain copies of those documents and (2), as early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request and advise the immigration authority that the local educational agency administrator is required to provide direction before access to the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite or pupil may be granted. The bill would require a local educational agency and its personnel, if an immigration authority does not present a valid judicial warrant or court order, to (1), as early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request, (2) deny the immigration authority access to the nonpublic areas of the schoolsite, and (3) make a reasonable effort to have the denial witnessed and documented. The bill would also prohibit a local educational agency and its personnel from disclosing or providing, in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil, pupils family and household, school employee, or teacher to an immigration authority without a valid judicial warrant or court order directing the local educational agency or its personnel to do so. The bill would also require the Attorney General to publish model policies to assist K12 schools in responding to immigration issues pursuant to the above-described requirements. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law prohibits, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state- or federally supported educational program, school officials and employees of a school district, county office of education, or charter school from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of pupils or their family members.
This bill would prohibit school districts, county offices of education, or charter schools and their personnel from granting a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, or other federal official engaging in immigration related investigation or enforcement, permission to access a school campus without a judicial warrant. permission to an immigration authority to access a schoolsite, producing a pupil for questioning by an immigration authority at a schoolsite, or consenting to a search of any kind at a schoolsite by an immigration authority, unless the immigration authority presents a valid judicial warrant or court order. The bill would require a local educational agency and its personnel, when presented with a valid judicial warrant or court order to carry out the above-described actions, to (1) request valid identification and a written statement of purpose from the immigration authority and retain copies of those documents and (2), as early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request and advise the immigration authority that the local educational agency administrator is required to provide direction before access to the schoolsite or pupil may be granted. The bill would require a local educational agency and its personnel, to the extent possible, to have the denial of permission for access witnessed and documented. if an immigration authority does not present a valid judicial warrant or court order, to (1), as early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request, (2) deny the immigration authority access to the schoolsite, and (3) make a reasonable effort to have the denial witnessed and documented. The bill would also prohibit a local educational agency and its personnel from disclosing or providing, in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil, pupils family and household, school employee, or teacher to a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, or any other federal official engaging in immigration related investigation or enforcement, without a judicial warrant, and regarding a pupils educational records or personal information, without the written consent of the pupils parent or legal guardian. an immigration authority without a valid judicial warrant or court order directing the local educational agency or its personnel to do so. The bill would also require the Attorney General to publish model policies to assist K12 schools in responding to immigration issues pursuant to the above-described requirements. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law, the California Values Act, generally prohibits California law enforcement agencies from investigating, interrogating, detaining, detecting, or arresting persons for immigration enforcement purposes. Existing law provides certain limited exceptions to this prohibition, including transfers of persons pursuant to a judicial warrant and providing certain information to federal authorities regarding serious and violent felons in custody.This bill would prohibit California law enforcement agencies from collaborating with, or providing any information about a pupil, pupils family and household, school employee, or teacher in writing, verbally, on in any other manner, to immigration authorities regarding proposed or currently underway immigration enforcement actions when the actions could be or are taking place within a radius of one mile of any schoolsite. To the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local law enforcement agencies or officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
Existing law prohibits, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state- or federally supported educational program, school officials and employees of a school district, county office of education, or charter school from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of pupils or their family members.
This bill would prohibit school districts, county offices of education, or charter schools and their personnel from granting a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, or other federal official engaging in immigration related investigation or enforcement, permission to access a school campus without a judicial warrant. The bill would require a local educational agency and its personnel, to the extent possible, to have the denial of permission for access witnessed and documented. The bill would also prohibit a local educational agency and its personnel from disclosing or providing, in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil, pupils family and household, school employee, or teacher to a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, or any other federal official engaging in immigration related investigation or enforcement, without a judicial warrant, and regarding a pupils educational records or personal information, without the written consent of the pupils parent or legal guardian. By imposing additional duties on local educational agencies, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
Existing law, the California Values Act, generally prohibits California law enforcement agencies from investigating, interrogating, detaining, detecting, or arresting persons for immigration enforcement purposes. Existing law provides certain limited exceptions to this prohibition, including transfers of persons pursuant to a judicial warrant and providing certain information to federal authorities regarding serious and violent felons in custody.
This bill would prohibit California law enforcement agencies from collaborating with, or providing any information about a pupil, pupils family and household, school employee, or teacher in writing, verbally, on in any other manner, to immigration authorities regarding proposed or currently underway immigration enforcement actions when the actions could be or are taking place within a radius of one mile of any schoolsite. To the extent this bill would impose additional duties on local law enforcement agencies or officials, the bill would impose a state-mandated local program.
The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to the statutory provisions noted above.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.
The Office of Civil Rights shall employ the Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, who shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
SEC. 2.Section 33803.3 is added to the Education Code, to read:33803.3.The Office of Civil Rights shall employ the Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, who shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
SEC. 3.Section 33803.4 is added to the Education Code, to read:33803.4.The Office of Civil Rights shall employ the Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, who shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
SEC. 4.Section 33803.5 is added to the Education Code, to read:33803.5.The Office of Civil Rights shall employ the LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, who shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
SEC. 5.This act shall become operative only if Assembly Bill 715 of the 202526 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2026.
The Office of Civil Rights shall employ the Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, who shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
SEC. 2.Section 33803.3 is added to the Education Code, to read:33803.3.The Office of Civil Rights shall employ the Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, who shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
SEC. 3.Section 33803.4 is added to the Education Code, to read:33803.4.The Office of Civil Rights shall employ the Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, who shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
SEC. 4.Section 33803.5 is added to the Education Code, to read:33803.5.The Office of Civil Rights shall employ the LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, who shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
SEC. 5.This act shall become operative only if Assembly Bill 715 of the 202526 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2026.
The Office of Civil Rights shall employ the Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, who shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
SEC. 2.Section 33803.3 is added to the Education Code, to read:33803.3.The Office of Civil Rights shall employ the Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, who shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
SEC. 3.Section 33803.4 is added to the Education Code, to read:33803.4.The Office of Civil Rights shall employ the Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, who shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
SEC. 4.Section 33803.5 is added to the Education Code, to read:33803.5.The Office of Civil Rights shall employ the LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, who shall be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
SEC. 5.This act shall become operative only if Assembly Bill 715 of the 202526 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2026.
SECTION 1.(a)The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:(1)Immigrant families are facing increased threats of deportation.(2)According to estimates as recent as 2022, 46 percent of Californias 9 million children are part of immigrant families, 1 in 5 California children live in mixed-status families, and 93 percent of children in mixed-status families are United States citizens.(3)California schools report that immigration authorities have targeted and detained pupils parents as they transport the pupils to or from school.(4)A report by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization found that in the United States, deportation fears have an impact on school attendance.(5)The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization found that the fear is exacerbated if schools allow immigration authorities to search the facilities or collect immigration information on pupils.(6)A report by the California Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights found that an increase in families fear of deportation has a chilling effect on education for undocumented children and children of undocumented parents, resulting in decreased school attendance and school funding, which is intended to support all pupils.(7)Studies have also shown strong associations between increased immigration enforcement and increased absenteeism for Latinx pupils and children from immigrant families. This research also demonstrated that deportation threats have many effects on the academic success of Latinx pupils and pupils from immigrant families, including difficulties with concentration in school, lower achievement in mathematics, repeated grade levels, and an increase in dropout rates in some areas where intense immigration enforcement action takes place.(8)Current law guarantees that all children have a right to free public education, regardless of their immigration status, and a right to be in a public school learning environment that is free of discrimination, harassment, bullying, violence, or intimidation based on ethnicity, shared ancestry, or national origin.(9)The California Constitution provides all pupils and school personnel, regardless of immigration status, the inalienable right to attend campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful.(10)Increases in school absenteeism cause school revenue to decline in California, where school funding is connected to pupil attendance.(b)Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to do all of the following:(1)Keep Californias educational resources and personnel focused on providing the stable and secure learning environment to which our pupils have a right regardless of their immigration status.(2)Protect needed school revenue that will be diminished as a result of immigration enforcement threats on or near school campuses. These deportation threats cause families, including families of citizens of the United States, to be afraid to send their pupils to school, thereby reducing school revenue and preventing pupils of all backgrounds from obtaining a quality education.(3)Assure California families that our schools are not in the business of immigration enforcement and that educational personnel can remain focused on providing quality education to pupils. Pupils safety, well-being, and access to education are paramount. It is also critical to preserve school funding in the face of declining enrollment and other factors that reduce school revenue. By limiting interruptions in instructional time and fostering an environment where pupils feel safe learning, California will protect pupils, families, and school employees, and preserve schools attendance-based revenue.(4)Align state law and the Attorney Generals guidance and model policies to assist Californias K12 schools in responding to immigration issues.SEC. 2.Section 234.8 is added to the Education Code, immediately following Section 234.7, to read:234.8.(a)(1)A local educational agency and its personnel shall not, to the extent possible, do any of the following, unless pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order:(A)Grant permission to access the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite to an immigration authority.(B)Produce a pupil for questioning by an immigration authority at a schoolsite.(C)Consent to a search of any kind of the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite by an immigration authority.(2)If an immigration authority presents a valid judicial warrant or court order to access a schoolsite, have a pupil be produced for questioning at a schoolsite, or conduct a search of any kind at a schoolsite, then the responding local educational agency and its personnel shall do both of the following:(A)Request from the immigration authority valid personal identification and a written statement of purposes, and retain a copy of the provided documentation.(B)As early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request, and advise the immigration authority that the local educational agency administrator is required to provide direction before access to the schoolsite or pupil may be granted.(3)If an immigration authority, without a valid judicial warrant or court order, requests access to the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite, requests a pupil be produced for questioning at a schoolsite, or demands to conduct a search of any kind of the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite, then the responding local educational agency and its personnel shall do all of the following:(A)As early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request.(B)Deny the immigration authority access to the nonpublic areas of the schoolsite.(C)Make a reasonable effort to have the denial witnessed and documented.(b)A local educational agency and its personnel shall not disclose or provide in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil, pupils family and household, school employee, or teacher, including, but not limited to, personal information as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 1798.3 of the Civil Code, information about a pupils home, and information about a pupils travel schedule, to an immigration authority without a valid judicial warrant or court order directing the local educational agency or its personnel to do so. Any disclosure of a pupils education records pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order shall satisfy the parent notification requirements pursuant to Section 99.31(a)(9)(ii) of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations.(c)For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:(1)Immigration authority means any federal, state, or local officer, employee, or person performing immigration enforcement functions.(2)Immigration enforcement includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a persons presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States. (3)Local educational agency means a school district, county office of education, or charter school.(4)Schoolsite means an individual school campus of a school district, county office of education, or charter school, an area where a local educational agencys school-sponsored activity is currently being held, or a schoolbus or other transportation provided by a local educational agency.(d)This section does not prohibit or restrict any governmental entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local governmental entity, pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code.(e)The Attorney General shall publish model policies to assist K12 schools in responding to immigration issues pursuant to the requirements of this section.SEC. 3.The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.SEC. 5.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:To ensure that schools continue to provide children and their families guaranteed access to school campuses without contributing to fear of deportation, harassment, or intimidation by immigration authorities and to retain critically needed attendance-based funding, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.(a)The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1)Immigrant families are facing increased threats of deportation.
(2)According to estimates as recent as 2022, 46 percent of Californias 9 million children are part of immigrant families, 1 in 5 California children live in mixed-status families, and 93 percent of children in mixed-status families are United States citizens.
(3)California schools report that immigration authorities have targeted and detained pupils parents as they transport the pupils to or from school.
(4)A report by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization found that in the United States, deportation fears have an impact on school attendance.
(5)The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization found that the fear is exacerbated if schools allow immigration authorities to search the facilities or collect immigration information on pupils.
(6)A report by the California Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights found that an increase in families fear of deportation has a chilling effect on education for undocumented children and children of undocumented parents, resulting in decreased school attendance and school funding, which is intended to support all pupils.
(7)Studies have also shown strong associations between increased immigration enforcement and increased absenteeism for Latinx pupils and children from immigrant families. This research also demonstrated that deportation threats have many effects on the academic success of Latinx pupils and pupils from immigrant families, including difficulties with concentration in school, lower achievement in mathematics, repeated grade levels, and an increase in dropout rates in some areas where intense immigration enforcement action takes place.
(8)Current law guarantees that all children have a right to free public education, regardless of their immigration status, and a right to be in a public school learning environment that is free of discrimination, harassment, bullying, violence, or intimidation based on ethnicity, shared ancestry, or national origin.
(9)The California Constitution provides all pupils and school personnel, regardless of immigration status, the inalienable right to attend campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful.
(10)Increases in school absenteeism cause school revenue to decline in California, where school funding is connected to pupil attendance.
(b)Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to do all of the following:
(1)Keep Californias educational resources and personnel focused on providing the stable and secure learning environment to which our pupils have a right regardless of their immigration status.
(2)Protect needed school revenue that will be diminished as a result of immigration enforcement threats on or near school campuses. These deportation threats cause families, including families of citizens of the United States, to be afraid to send their pupils to school, thereby reducing school revenue and preventing pupils of all backgrounds from obtaining a quality education.
(3)Assure California families that our schools are not in the business of immigration enforcement and that educational personnel can remain focused on providing quality education to pupils. Pupils safety, well-being, and access to education are paramount. It is also critical to preserve school funding in the face of declining enrollment and other factors that reduce school revenue. By limiting interruptions in instructional time and fostering an environment where pupils feel safe learning, California will protect pupils, families, and school employees, and preserve schools attendance-based revenue.
(4)Align state law and the Attorney Generals guidance and model policies to assist Californias K12 schools in responding to immigration issues.
SEC. 2.Section 234.8 is added to the Education Code, immediately following Section 234.7, to read:234.8.(a)(1)A local educational agency and its personnel shall not, to the extent possible, do any of the following, unless pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order:
(A)Grant permission to access the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite to an immigration authority.
(B)Produce a pupil for questioning by an immigration authority at a schoolsite.
(C)Consent to a search of any kind of the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite by an immigration authority.
(2)If an immigration authority presents a valid judicial warrant or court order to access a schoolsite, have a pupil be produced for questioning at a schoolsite, or conduct a search of any kind at a schoolsite, then the responding local educational agency and its personnel shall do both of the following:
(A)Request from the immigration authority valid personal identification and a written statement of purposes, and retain a copy of the provided documentation.
(B)As early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request, and advise the immigration authority that the local educational agency administrator is required to provide direction before access to the schoolsite or pupil may be granted.
(3)If an immigration authority, without a valid judicial warrant or court order, requests access to the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite, requests a pupil be produced for questioning at a schoolsite, or demands to conduct a search of any kind of the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite, then the responding local educational agency and its personnel shall do all of the following:
(A)As early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request.
(B)Deny the immigration authority access to the nonpublic areas of the schoolsite.
(C)Make a reasonable effort to have the denial witnessed and documented.
(b)A local educational agency and its personnel shall not disclose or provide in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil, pupils family and household, school employee, or teacher, including, but not limited to, personal information as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 1798.3 of the Civil Code, information about a pupils home, and information about a pupils travel schedule, to an immigration authority without a valid judicial warrant or court order directing the local educational agency or its personnel to do so. Any disclosure of a pupils education records pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order shall satisfy the parent notification requirements pursuant to Section 99.31(a)(9)(ii) of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(c)For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1)Immigration authority means any federal, state, or local officer, employee, or person performing immigration enforcement functions.
(2)Immigration enforcement includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a persons presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States.
(3)Local educational agency means a school district, county office of education, or charter school.
(4)Schoolsite means an individual school campus of a school district, county office of education, or charter school, an area where a local educational agencys school-sponsored activity is currently being held, or a schoolbus or other transportation provided by a local educational agency.
(d)This section does not prohibit or restrict any governmental entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local governmental entity, pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(e)The Attorney General shall publish model policies to assist K12 schools in responding to immigration issues pursuant to the requirements of this section.
SEC. 3.The provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or its application is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications that can be given effect without the invalid provision or application.
SEC. 3.SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SEC. 4.SEC. 5.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
To ensure that schools continue to provide children and their families guaranteed access to school campuses without contributing to fear of deportation, harassment, or intimidation by immigration authorities and to retain critically needed attendance-based funding, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
(a)The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1)Immigrant families are facing increased threats of deportation.
(2)According to estimates as recent as 2022, 46 percent of Californias 9 million children are part of immigrant families, 1 in 5 California children live in mixed-status families, and 93 percent of children in mixed-status families are United States citizens.
(3)California schools report that immigration authorities have targeted and detained pupils parents as they transport the pupils to or from school.
(4)A report by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization found that in the United States, deportation fears have an impact on school attendance.
(5)The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization found that the fear is exacerbated if schools allow immigration authorities to search the facilities or collect immigration information on pupils.
(6)A report by the California Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights found that an increase in families fear of deportation has a chilling effect on education for undocumented children and children of undocumented parents, resulting in decreased school attendance and school funding, which is intended to support all pupils.
(7)Studies have also shown strong associations between increased immigration enforcement and increased absenteeism for Latinx pupils and children from immigrant families. This research also demonstrated that deportation threats have many effects on the academic success of Latinx pupils and pupils from immigrant families, including difficulties with concentration in school, lower achievement in mathematics, repeated grade levels, and an increase in dropout rates in some areas where intense immigration enforcement action takes place.
(8)Current law guarantees that all children have a right to free public education, regardless of their immigration status, and a right to be in a public school learning environment that is free of discrimination, harassment, bullying, violence, or intimidation based on ethnicity, shared ancestry, or national origin.
(9)The California Constitution provides all pupils and school personnel, regardless of immigration status, the inalienable right to attend campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful.
(10)Increases in school absenteeism cause school revenue to decline in California, where school funding is connected to pupil attendance.
(b)Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to do all of the following:
(1)Keep Californias educational resources and personnel focused on providing the stable and secure learning environment to which our pupils have a right regardless of their immigration status.
(2)Protect needed school revenue that will be diminished as a result of immigration enforcement threats on or near school campuses. These deportation threats cause families, including families of citizens of the United States, to be afraid to send their pupils to school, thereby reducing school revenue and preventing pupils of all backgrounds from obtaining a quality education.
(3)Assure California families that our schools are not in the business of immigration enforcement and that educational personnel can remain focused on providing quality education to pupils. Pupils safety, well-being, and access to education are paramount. It is also critical to preserve school funding in the face of declining enrollment and other factors that reduce school revenue. By limiting interruptions in instructional time and fostering an environment where pupils feel safe learning, California will protect pupils, families, and school employees, and preserve schools attendance-based revenue.
(4)Align state law and the Attorney Generals guidance and model policies to assist Californias K12 schools in responding to immigration issues.
SEC. 2.Section 234.8 is added to the Education Code, immediately following Section 234.7, to read:234.8.(a)(1)A local educational agency and its personnel shall not not, to the extent possible, do any of the following, unless pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order:
(A)Grant permission to access the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite to an immigration authority.
(B)Produce a pupil for questioning by an immigration authority at a schoolsite.
(C)Consent to a search of any kind at of the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite by an immigration authority.
(2)If an immigration authority presents a valid judicial warrant or court order to access a schoolsite, have a pupil be produced for questioning at a schoolsite, or conduct a search of any kind at a schoolsite, then the responding local educational agency and its personnel shall do both of the following:
(A)Request from the immigration authority valid personal identification and a written statement of purposes, and retain a copy of the provided documentation.
(B)As early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request, and advise the immigration authority that the local educational agency administrator is required to provide direction before access to the schoolsite or pupil may be granted.
(3)If an immigration authority, without a valid judicial warrant or court order, requests access to the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite, requests a pupil be produced for questioning at a schoolsite, or demands to conduct a search of any kind at of the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite, then the responding local educational agency and its personnel shall do all of the following:
(A)As early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request.
(B)Deny the immigration authority access to the nonpublic areas of the schoolsite.
(C)Make a reasonable effort to have the denial witnessed and documented.
(b)A local educational agency and its personnel shall not disclose or provide in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil, pupils family and household, school employee, or teacher, including, but not limited to, personal information as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 1798.3 of the Civil Code, information about a pupils home, and information about a pupils travel schedule, to an immigration authority without a valid judicial warrant or court order directing the local educational agency or its personnel to do so. Any disclosure of a pupils education records pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order shall satisfy the parent notification requirements pursuant to Section 99.31(a)(9)(ii) of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(c)For purposes of this section, the following definitions shall apply:
(1)Immigration authority means any federal, state, or local officer, employee, or person performing immigration enforcement functions.
(2)Immigration enforcement includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a persons presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States.
(2)(3)Local educational agency means a school district, county office of education, or charter school.
(3)(4)Schoolsite means an individual school campus of a school district, county office of education, or charter school, an area where a local educational agencys school-sponsored activity is currently being held, or a schoolbus or other transportation provided by a local educational agency.
(d)This section does not prohibit or restrict any governmental entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local governmental entity, pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(e)The Attorney General shall publish model policies to assist K12 schools in responding to immigration issues pursuant to the requirements of this section.
SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SEC. 4.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
To ensure that schools continue to provide children and their families guaranteed access to school campuses without contributing to fear of deportation, harassment, or intimidation by immigration authorities and to retain critically needed attendance-based funding, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
REVISIONS: HeadingLines 4 and 6.(a)The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1)Immigrant families are facing increased threats of deportation.
(2)According to estimates as recent as 2022, 46 percent of Californias 9 million children are part of immigrant families, 1 in 5 California children live in mixed-status families, and 93 percent of children in mixed-status families are United States citizens.
(3)California schools report that United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents immigration authorities have targeted and detained pupils parents as they transport the pupils to or from school.
(4)A report by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization found that in the United States, deportation fears have an impact on school attendance.
(5)The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization found that the fear is exacerbated if schools allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents immigration authorities to search the facilities or collect immigration information on pupils.
(6)A report by the California Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights found that an increase in families fear of deportation has a chilling effect on education for undocumented children and children of undocumented parents, resulting in decreased school attendance and school funding, which is intended to support all pupils.
(7)Studies have also shown strong associations between increased immigration enforcement and increased absenteeism for Latinx pupils and children from immigrant families. This research also demonstrated that deportation threats have many effects on the academic success of Latinx pupils and pupils from immigrant families, including difficulties with concentration in school, lower achievement in mathematics, repeated grade levels, and an increase in dropout rates in some areas where intense immigration enforcement action takes place.
(8)Current law guarantees that all children have a right to free public education, regardless of their immigration status, and a right to be in a public school learning environment that is free of discrimination, harassment, bullying, violence, or intimidation based on ethnicity, shared ancestry, or national origin.
(9)The California Constitution provides all pupils and school personnel, regardless of immigration status, the inalienable right to attend campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful.
(10)Increases in school absenteeism cause school revenue to decline in California, where school funding is connected to pupil attendance.
(b)Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to do all of the following:
(1)Declare that California must take action to protect California pupils and ensure that guarantees in the law providing pupils with an education regardless of their immigration status are followed.(1)Keep Californias educational resources and personnel focused on providing the stable and secure learning environment to which our pupils have a right regardless of their immigration status.
(2)Protect needed school revenue that will be diminished as a result of immigration enforcement threats on or near school campuses. These deportation threats cause families, including families of citizens of the United States, to be afraid to send their pupils to school, thereby reducing school revenue and preventing pupils of all backgrounds from obtaining a quality education.
(3)Assure families that California schools will not cooperate with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials who are or plan to be on or near a schoolsite. California families that our schools are not in the business of immigration enforcement and that educational personnel can remain focused on providing quality education to pupils. Pupils safety, well-being, and access to education are paramount. It is also critical to preserve school funding in the face of declining enrollment and other factors that reduce school revenue. By refraining from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials who seek to access school campuses and communities surrounding school campuses, limiting interruptions in instructional time and fostering an environment where pupils feel safe learning, California will safeguard protect pupils, families, and school employees, and preserve schools attendance-based revenue.
(4)Align state law and the Attorney Generals guidance and model policies to assist Californias K12 schools in responding to immigration issues.
SEC. 2.Section 234.8 is added to the Education Code, immediately following Section 234.7, to read:234.8.(a)(1)A local educational agency and its personnel shall not grant a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, or other federal official engaging in immigration related investigation or enforcement, permission to access a school campus without a judicial warrant. do any of the following, unless pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order:
(2)A local educational agency and its personnel shall, to the extent possible, have the denial of permission for access pursuant to paragraph (1) witnessed and documented.(A)Grant permission to access a schoolsite to an immigration authority.
(B)Produce a pupil for questioning by an immigration authority at a schoolsite.
(C)Consent to a search of any kind at a schoolsite by an immigration authority.
(2)If an immigration authority presents a valid judicial warrant or court order to access a schoolsite, have a pupil be produced for questioning at a schoolsite, or conduct a search of any kind at a schoolsite, then the responding local educational agency and its personnel shall do both of the following:
(A)Request from the immigration authority valid personal identification and a written statement of purposes, and retain a copy of the provided documentation.
(B)As early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request, and advise the immigration authority that the local educational agency administrator is required to provide direction before access to the schoolsite or pupil may be granted.
(3)If an immigration authority, without a valid judicial warrant or court order, requests access to a schoolsite, requests a pupil be produced for questioning at a schoolsite, or demands to conduct a search of any kind at a schoolsite, then the responding local educational agency and its personnel shall do all of the following:
(A)As early as possible, notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request.
(B)Deny the immigration authority access to the schoolsite.
(C)Make a reasonable effort to have the denial witnessed and documented.
(b)A local educational agency and its personnel shall not disclose or provide in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil, pupils family and household, school employee, or teacher to a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, or any other federal official engaging in immigration related investigation or enforcement, without a judicial warrant and, regarding a pupils education records or personal information, without the written consent of the pupils parent or legal guardian. teacher, including, but not limited to, personal information as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 1798.3 of the Civil Code, information about a pupils home, and information about a pupils travel schedule, to an immigration authority without a valid judicial warrant or court order directing the local educational agency or its personnel to do so. Any disclosure of a pupils education records pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order shall satisfy the parent notification requirements pursuant to Section 99.31(a)(9)(ii) of Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
(c)For purposes of this section, local educational agency means a school district, county office of education, or charter school. the following definitions shall apply:
(1)Immigration authority means any federal, state, or local officer, employee, or person performing immigration enforcement functions.
(2)Local educational agency means a school district, county office of education, or charter school.
(3)Schoolsite means an individual school campus of a school district, county office of education, or charter school, an area where a local educational agencys school-sponsored activity is currently being held, or a schoolbus or other transportation provided by a local educational agency.
(d)This section does not prohibit or restrict any governmental entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local governmental entity, pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(e)The Attorney General shall publish model policies to assist K12 schools in responding to immigration issues pursuant to the requirements of this section.
SEC. 3.Section 7284.6 of the Government Code is amended to read:7284.6.(a)California law enforcement agencies shall not:(1)Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following:(A)Inquiring into an individuals immigration status.(B)Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request.(C)Providing information regarding a persons release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public, or is in response to a notification request from immigration authorities in accordance with Section 7282.5. Responses are never required, but are permitted under this subdivision, provided that they do not violate any local law or policy.(D)Providing personal information, as defined in Section 1798.3 of the Civil Code, about an individual, including, but not limited to, the individuals home address or work address unless that information is available to the public.(E)Making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants.(F)Assisting immigration authorities in the activities described in Section 1357(a)(3) of Title 8 of the United States Code.(G)Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal.(2)Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies for purposes of immigration enforcement. All peace officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the policies of the employing agency.(3)Use immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in agency or department custody.(4)Transfer an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination, or in accordance with Section 7282.5.(5)Provide office space exclusively dedicated for immigration authorities for use within a city or county law enforcement facility.(6)Contract with the federal government for use of California law enforcement agency facilities to house individuals as federal detainees for purposes of civil immigration custody, except pursuant to Chapter 17.8 (commencing with Section 7310).(b)Notwithstanding the limitations in subdivision (a), this section does not prevent any California law enforcement agency from doing any of the following that does not violate any policy of the law enforcement agency or any local law or policy of the jurisdiction in which the agency is operating:(1)Investigating, enforcing, or detaining upon reasonable suspicion of, or arresting for a violation of, Section 1326(a) of Title 8 of the United States Code that may be subject to the enhancement specified in Section 1326(b)(2) of Title 8 of the United States Code and that is detected during an unrelated law enforcement activity. Transfers to immigration authorities are permitted under this subsection only in accordance with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a).(2)Responding to a request from immigration authorities for information about a specific persons criminal history, including previous criminal arrests, convictions, or similar criminal history information accessed through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), where otherwise permitted by state law.(3)Conducting enforcement or investigative duties associated with a joint law enforcement task force, including the sharing of confidential information with other law enforcement agencies for purposes of task force investigations, so long as the following conditions are met:(A)The primary purpose of the joint law enforcement task force is not immigration enforcement, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 7284.4.(B)The enforcement or investigative duties are primarily related to a violation of state or federal law unrelated to immigration enforcement.(C)Participation in the task force by a California law enforcement agency does not violate any local law or policy to which it is otherwise subject.(4)Making inquiries into information necessary to certify an individual who has been identified as a potential crime or trafficking victim for a T or U Visa pursuant to Section 1101(a)(15)(T) or 1101(a)(15)(U) of Title 8 of the United States Code or to comply with Section 922(d)(5) of Title 18 of the United States Code.(5)Giving immigration authorities access to interview an individual in agency or department custody. All interview access shall comply with requirements of the TRUTH Act (Chapter 17.2 (commencing with Section 7283)).(c)Notwithstanding the exceptions in subdivision (b), California law enforcement agencies shall not collaborate with, or provide any information about a pupil, pupils family and household, school employee, or teacher in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, to immigration authorities regarding proposed or currently underway immigration enforcement actions when the actions could be or are taking place within a radius of one mile of a schoolsite. (d)(1)If a California law enforcement agency chooses to participate in a joint law enforcement task force, for which a California law enforcement agency has agreed to dedicate personnel or resources on an ongoing basis, it shall submit a report annually to the Department of Justice, as specified by the Attorney General. The law enforcement agency shall report the following information, if known, for each task force of which it is a member:(A)The purpose of the task force.(B)The federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies involved.(C)The total number of arrests made during the reporting period.(D)The number of people arrested for immigration enforcement purposes.(2)All law enforcement agencies shall report annually to the Department of Justice, in a manner specified by the Attorney General, the number of transfers pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a), and the offense that allowed for the transfer pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a).(3)All records described in this subdivision shall be public records for purposes of the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000)), including the exemptions provided by that act and, as permitted under that act, personal identifying information may be redacted prior to public disclosure. To the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation, that information shall not be disclosed.(4)If more than one California law enforcement agency is participating in a joint task force that meets the reporting requirement pursuant to this section, the joint task force shall designate a local or state agency responsible for completing the reporting requirement.(e)The Attorney General, by March 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, shall report on the total number of arrests made by joint law enforcement task forces, and the total number of arrests made for the purpose of immigration enforcement by all task force participants, including federal law enforcement agencies. To the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation, that information shall not be included in the Attorney Generals report. The Attorney General shall post the reports required by this subdivision on the Attorney Generals internet website.(f)This section does not prohibit or restrict any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local government entity, pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code.(g)Nothing in this section shall prohibit a California law enforcement agency from asserting its own jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement matters.SEC. 4.SEC. 3.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SEC. 5.SEC. 4.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
To ensure that schools continue to provide children and their families guaranteed access to school campuses without contributing to fear of deportation, harassment, or intimidation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials immigration authorities and to retain critically needed attendance-based funding, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
(a)The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
(1)Immigrant families are facing increased threats of deportation.
(2)According to estimates as recent as 2022, 46 percent of Californias 9 million children are part of immigrant families, 1 in 5 California children live in mixed-status families, and 93 percent of children in mixed-status families are United States citizens.
(3)California schools report that United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have targeted and detained pupils parents as they transport the pupils to or from school.
(4)A report by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization found that in the United States, deportation fears have an impact on school attendance.
(5)The United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization found that the fear is exacerbated if schools allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to search the facilities or collect immigration information on pupils.
(6)A report by the California Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights found that an increase in families fear of deportation has a chilling effect on education for undocumented children and children of undocumented parents, resulting in decreased school attendance and school funding, which is intended to support all pupils.
(7)Studies have also shown strong associations between increased immigration enforcement and increased absenteeism for Latinx pupils and children from immigrant families. This research also demonstrated that deportation threats have many effects on the academic success of Latinx pupils and pupils from immigrant families, including difficulties with concentration in school, lower achievement in mathematics, repeated grade levels, and an increase in dropout rates in some areas where intense immigration enforcement action takes place.
(8)Current law guarantees that all children have a right to free public education, regardless of their immigration status, and a right to be in a public school learning environment that is free of discrimination, harassment, bullying, violence, or intimidation based on ethnicity, shared ancestry, or national origin.
(9)The California Constitution provides all pupils and school personnel, regardless of immigration status, the inalienable right to attend campuses that are safe, secure, and peaceful.
(10)Increases in school absenteeism cause school revenue to decline in California, where school funding is connected to pupil attendance.
(b)Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature to do all of the following:
(1)Declare that California must take action to protect California pupils and ensure that guarantees in the law providing pupils with an education regardless of their immigration status are followed.
(2)Protect needed school revenue that will be diminished as a result of immigration enforcement threats on or near school campuses. These deportation threats cause families, including families of citizens of the United States, to be afraid to send their pupils to school, thereby reducing school revenue and preventing pupils of all backgrounds from obtaining a quality education.
(3)Assure families that California schools will not cooperate with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials who are or plan to be on or near a schoolsite. Pupils safety, well-being, and access to education are paramount. It is also critical to preserve school funding in the face of declining enrollment and other factors that reduce school revenue. By refraining from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials who seek to access school campuses and communities surrounding school campuses, California will safeguard pupils, families, and school employees, and preserve schools attendance-based revenue.
SEC. 2.Section 234.8 is added to the Education Code, immediately following Section 234.7, to read:234.8.(a)(1)A local educational agency and its personnel shall not grant a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, or other federal official engaging in immigration related investigation or enforcement, permission to access a school campus without a judicial warrant.
(2)A local educational agency and its personnel shall, to the extent possible, have the denial of permission for access pursuant to paragraph (1) witnessed and documented.
(b)A local educational agency and its personnel shall not disclose or provide in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil, pupils family and household, school employee, or teacher to a United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer, or any other federal official engaging in immigration related investigation or enforcement, without a judicial warrant and, regarding a pupils education records or personal information, without the written consent of the pupils parent or legal guardian.
(c)For purposes of this section, local educational agency means a school district, county office of education, or charter school.
SEC. 3.Section 7284.6 of the Government Code is amended to read:7284.6.(a)California law enforcement agencies shall not:
(1)Use agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, including any of the following:
(A)Inquiring into an individuals immigration status.
(B)Detaining an individual on the basis of a hold request.
(C)Providing information regarding a persons release date or responding to requests for notification by providing release dates or other information unless that information is available to the public, or is in response to a notification request from immigration authorities in accordance with Section 7282.5. Responses are never required, but are permitted under this subdivision, provided that they do not violate any local law or policy.
(D)Providing personal information, as defined in Section 1798.3 of the Civil Code, about an individual, including, but not limited to, the individuals home address or work address unless that information is available to the public.
(E)Making or intentionally participating in arrests based on civil immigration warrants.
(F)Assisting immigration authorities in the activities described in Section 1357(a)(3) of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(G)Performing the functions of an immigration officer, whether pursuant to Section 1357(g) of Title 8 of the United States Code or any other law, regulation, or policy, whether formal or informal.
(2)Place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies or employ peace officers deputized as special federal officers or special federal deputies for purposes of immigration enforcement. All peace officers remain subject to California law governing conduct of peace officers and the policies of the employing agency.
(3)Use immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters relating to individuals in agency or department custody.
(4)Transfer an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant or judicial probable cause determination, or in accordance with Section 7282.5.
(5)Provide office space exclusively dedicated for immigration authorities for use within a city or county law enforcement facility.
(6)Contract with the federal government for use of California law enforcement agency facilities to house individuals as federal detainees for purposes of civil immigration custody, except pursuant to Chapter 17.8 (commencing with Section 7310).
(b)Notwithstanding the limitations in subdivision (a), this section does not prevent any California law enforcement agency from doing any of the following that does not violate any policy of the law enforcement agency or any local law or policy of the jurisdiction in which the agency is operating:
(1)Investigating, enforcing, or detaining upon reasonable suspicion of, or arresting for a violation of, Section 1326(a) of Title 8 of the United States Code that may be subject to the enhancement specified in Section 1326(b)(2) of Title 8 of the United States Code and that is detected during an unrelated law enforcement activity. Transfers to immigration authorities are permitted under this subsection only in accordance with paragraph (4) of subdivision (a).
(2)Responding to a request from immigration authorities for information about a specific persons criminal history, including previous criminal arrests, convictions, or similar criminal history information accessed through the California Law Enforcement Telecommunications System (CLETS), where otherwise permitted by state law.
(3)Conducting enforcement or investigative duties associated with a joint law enforcement task force, including the sharing of confidential information with other law enforcement agencies for purposes of task force investigations, so long as the following conditions are met:
(A)The primary purpose of the joint law enforcement task force is not immigration enforcement, as defined in subdivision (f) of Section 7284.4.
(B)The enforcement or investigative duties are primarily related to a violation of state or federal law unrelated to immigration enforcement.
(C)Participation in the task force by a California law enforcement agency does not violate any local law or policy to which it is otherwise subject.
(4)Making inquiries into information necessary to certify an individual who has been identified as a potential crime or trafficking victim for a T or U Visa pursuant to Section 1101(a)(15)(T) or 1101(a)(15)(U) of Title 8 of the United States Code or to comply with Section 922(d)(5) of Title 18 of the United States Code.
(5)Giving immigration authorities access to interview an individual in agency or department custody. All interview access shall comply with requirements of the TRUTH Act (Chapter 17.2 (commencing with Section 7283)).
(c)Notwithstanding the exceptions in subdivision (b), California law enforcement agencies shall not collaborate with, or provide any information about a pupil, pupils family and household, school employee, or teacher in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, to immigration authorities regarding proposed or currently underway immigration enforcement actions when the actions could be or are taking place within a radius of one mile of a schoolsite.
(c)(d)(1)If a California law enforcement agency chooses to participate in a joint law enforcement task force, for which a California law enforcement agency has agreed to dedicate personnel or resources on an ongoing basis, it shall submit a report annually to the Department of Justice, as specified by the Attorney General. The law enforcement agency shall report the following information, if known, for each task force of which it is a member:
(A)The purpose of the task force.
(B)The federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies involved.
(C)The total number of arrests made during the reporting period.
(D)The number of people arrested for immigration enforcement purposes.
(2)All law enforcement agencies shall report annually to the Department of Justice, in a manner specified by the Attorney General, the number of transfers pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a), and the offense that allowed for the transfer pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (a).
(3)All records described in this subdivision shall be public records for purposes of the California Public Records Act (Division 10 (commencing with Section 7920.000)), including the exemptions provided by that act and, as permitted under that act, personal identifying information may be redacted prior to public disclosure. To the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation, that information shall not be disclosed.
(4)If more than one California law enforcement agency is participating in a joint task force that meets the reporting requirement pursuant to this section, the joint task force shall designate a local or state agency responsible for completing the reporting requirement.
(d)(e)The Attorney General, by March 1, 2019, and annually thereafter, shall report on the total number of arrests made by joint law enforcement task forces, and the total number of arrests made for the purpose of immigration enforcement by all task force participants, including federal law enforcement agencies. To the extent that disclosure of a particular item of information would endanger the safety of a person involved in an investigation, or would endanger the successful completion of the investigation or a related investigation, that information shall not be included in the Attorney Generals report. The Attorney General shall post the reports required by this subdivision on the Attorney Generals internet website.
(e)(f)This section does not prohibit or restrict any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities, information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local government entity, pursuant to Sections 1373 and 1644 of Title 8 of the United States Code.
(f)(g)Nothing in this section shall prohibit a California law enforcement agency from asserting its own jurisdiction over criminal law enforcement matters.
SEC. 4.If the Commission on State Mandates determines that this act contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement to local agencies and school districts for those costs shall be made pursuant to Part 7 (commencing with Section 17500) of Division 4 of Title 2 of the Government Code.
SEC. 5.This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are:
To ensure that schools continue to provide children and their families guaranteed access to school campuses without fear of deportation, harassment, or intimidation by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials and to retain critically needed attendance-based funding, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
|
Date
|
Status
|
|---|---|
| Oct 7, 2025 | Chaptered by Secretary of State. Chapter 429, Statutes of 2025. |
| Oct 7, 2025 | Approved by the Governor. |
| Sep 23, 2025 | Enrolled and presented to the Governor at 2 p.m. |
| Sep 13, 2025 | Assembly amendments concurred in. (Ayes 27. Noes 5. Page 3048.) Ordered to engrossing and enrolling. |
| Sep 13, 2025 | In Senate. Concurrence in Assembly amendments pending. |
| Sep 13, 2025 | Read third time. Passed. (Ayes 55. Noes 3. Page 3437.) Ordered to the Senate. |
| Sep 13, 2025 | Joint Rule 61(a)(14) and 51(a)(4) suspended. (Ayes 59. Noes 20. Page 3414.) |
| Sep 12, 2025 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 6. Noes 0.) . |
| Sep 12, 2025 | Assembly Rule 63 suspended. |
| Sep 11, 2025 | Joint Rule 62(a) suspended. |
| Sep 10, 2025 | Re-referred to Com. on ED. pursuant to Assembly Rule 96. |
| Sep 10, 2025 | Joint Rule 61(a) suspended. (Ayes 68. Noes 0. Page 3190.) |
| Sep 9, 2025 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Jul 14, 2025 | July 15 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Jul 9, 2025 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Jul 3, 2025 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on JUD. (Ayes 7. Noes 2.) (July 2). Re-referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Jul 3, 2025 | Coauthors revised. |
| Jun 9, 2025 | Referred to Coms. on ED. and JUD. |
| Jun 3, 2025 | In Assembly. Read first time. Held at Desk. |
| Jun 2, 2025 | Read third time. Urgency clause adopted. Passed. (Ayes 29. Noes 7. Page 1361.) Ordered to the Assembly. |
| May 23, 2025 | Read second time. Ordered to third reading. |
| May 23, 2025 | From committee: Do pass. (Ayes 5. Noes 1. Page 1189.) (May 23). |
| May 16, 2025 | Set for hearing May 23. |
| May 12, 2025 | May 12 hearing: Placed on APPR. suspense file. |
| May 2, 2025 | Set for hearing May 12. |
| Apr 30, 2025 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on APPR. (Ayes 11. Noes 1. Page 938.) (April 29). Re-referred to Com. on APPR. |
| Apr 23, 2025 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Apr 10, 2025 | Set for hearing April 29. |
| Apr 9, 2025 | Re-referred to Com. on JUD. |
| Apr 3, 2025 | Withdrawn from committee. |
| Apr 3, 2025 | Re-referred to Com. on RLS. |
| Apr 2, 2025 | From committee: Do pass and re-refer to Com. on PUB. S. (Ayes 6. Noes 1. Page 633.) (April 2). Re-referred to Com. on PUB. S. |
| Mar 24, 2025 | From committee with author's amendments. Read second time and amended. Re-referred to Com. on ED. |
| Mar 19, 2025 | Set for hearing April 2. |
| Mar 3, 2025 | March 19 set for first hearing canceled at the request of author. |
| Mar 3, 2025 | Set for hearing March 19. |
| Jan 29, 2025 | Referred to Coms. on ED. and PUB. S. |
| Jan 6, 2025 | Read first time. |
| Dec 17, 2024 | From printer. May be acted upon on or after January 16. |
| Dec 16, 2024 | Introduced. To Com. on RLS. for assignment. To print. |
|
Date
|
Description
|
Location
|
Votes
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sep 13, 2025 | SB 48 Gonzalez Senate Third Reading By FONG | Assembly Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 13, 2025 | W/O REF. TO FILE SB48 Gonzalez | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 12, 2025 | W/O REF. TO FILE SB48 Gonzalez | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| Sep 12, 2025 | Do pass. | Assembly Standing Committee on Education |
Passed |
|
| Jul 2, 2025 | Do pass and be re-referred to the Committee on [Judiciary] | Assembly Standing Committee on Education |
Passed |
|
| Jun 2, 2025 | Senate 3rd Reading SB48 Gonzalez et al. Urgency Clause | Senate Floor |
Passed |
|
| May 23, 2025 | Do pass | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| May 12, 2025 | Placed on suspense file | Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations |
Passed |
|
| Apr 29, 2025 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Appropriations] | Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary |
Passed |
|
| Apr 2, 2025 | Do pass, but first be re-referred to the Committee on [Public Safety] | Senate Standing Committee on Education |
Passed |
This list shows positions taken on this bill by organizations on the date displayed, which is linked to the original source.
Positions by individuals are not included.
|
Organization
|
Position
|
Date
|
|---|---|---|
| Alameda County | ** Support | |
| Alameda County Office Of Education | ** Support | |
| Alliance College-Ready Public Schools | ** Support | |
| Alum Rock Union Elementary School District | ** Support | |
| Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California | ** Support | |
| Aspire Public Schools | ** Support | |
| Back to the Start | ** Support | |
| Bend the Arc: Jewish Action California | ** Support | |
| Berryessa Union School District | ** Support | |
| California Adult Education Administrators Association | ** Support | |
| California Alliance Of Child And Family Services | ** Support | |
| California Association For Bilingual Education | ** Support | |
| California Association Of Food Banks | ** Support | |
| California Charter Schools Association | ** Support | |
| California Civil Liberties Advocacy | ** Support | |
| California Community Foundation | ** Support | |
| California Council For Adult Education | ** Support | |
| California County Superintendents | ** Support | |
| California Faculty Association | ** Support | |
| California Federation of Labor Unions | ** Support | |
| California Immigrant Policy Center | ** Support | |
| California School Employees Association | ** Support | |
| California State Council of Service Employees International Union | ** Support | |
| California State PTA | ** Support | |
| California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond | ** Support | |
| California Teachers Association | ** Support | |
| California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition | ** Support | |
| Californians Together | ** Support | |
| Cambrian School District | ** Support | |
| Campbell Union High School District | ** Support | |
| Catalyst California | ** Support | |
| Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law | ** Support | |
| CFT- a Union of Educators & Classified Professionals, Aft, Afl-cio | ** Support | |
| Children Now | ** Support | |
| ChildrenS Institute | ** Support | |
| Chinese for Affirmative Action | ** Support | |
| Church State Council | ** Support | |
| City of Alameda | ** Support | |
| City of Santa Ana | ** Support | |
| City of Soledad | ** Support | |
| Click here to enter text. | ** Against | |
| Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights | ** Support | |
| County Of Alameda | ** Support | |
| County of Monterey | ** Support | |
| County of San Mateo | ** Support | |
| County of Santa Cruz | ** Support | |
| Davis College Democrats | ** Support | |
| Democrats of Rossmoor | ** Support | |
| Disability Rights California | ** Support | |
| Drug Policy Alliance | ** Support | |
| Early Edge California | ** Support | |
| EdTrust-West | ** Support | |
| El Rancho Unified School District | ** Support | |
| Electronic Frontier Foundation | ** Support | |
| Ella Baker Center For Human Rights | ** Support | |
| Equality California | ** Support | |
| First 5 California | ** Support | |
| Fremont Union High School District | ** Support | |
| Fresno Unified School District | ** Support | |
| Friends Committee On Legislation Of California | ** Support | |
| Hispanas Organized for Political Equality | ** Support | |
| Jorgel Chavez, Mayor of Bell Gardens | ** Support | |
| Kipp Socal Public Schools | ** Support | |
| Long Beach Community College District | ** Support | |
| Los Altos School District | ** Support | |
| Los Angeles County Democratic Party | ** Support | |
| Los Angeles County Office Of Education | ** Support | |
| Los Angeles County School Trustee Association | ** Support | |
| Los Angeles Unified School District | ** Support | |
| Loyola Marymount University - The Center for Equity for English Learners | ** Support | |
| Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund | ** Support | |
| Milpitas Unified School District | ** Support | |
| Morgan Hill Unified School District | ** Support | |
| Mount Pleasant Elementary School District | ** Support | |
| Mountain View Los Altos High School District | ** Support | |
| Multi-faith Action Coalition | ** Support | |
| NextGen California | ** Support | |
| Northern California College Promise Coalition | ** Support | |
| Oak Grove School District | ** Support | |
| Oakland Privacy | ** Support | |
| orchard school district | ** Support | |
| Pacific Juvenile Defender Center | ** Support | |
| Partnership for Los Angeles Schools | ** Support | |
| Pomona Unified School District | ** Support | |
| Public Advocates | ** Support | |
| Public School Defenders Hub | ** Support | |
| Sacramento County Young Democrats | ** Support | |
| San Mateo County Board of Supervisors | ** Support | |
| San Mateo County Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Commission | ** Support | |
| San Mateo; County Of | ** Support | |
| Santa Barbara Womens Political Committee | ** Support | |
| Santa Clara County Office Of Education | ** Support | |
| Santa Clara County School Boards Association | ** Support | |
| Santa Clara Unified School District | ** Support | |
| Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors | ** Support | |
| Santa Monica Alternative Schoolhouse PTSA | ** Support | |
| Santa Monica Democratic Club | ** Support | |
| Secure Justice | ** Support | |
| Seneca Family of Agencies | ** Support | |
| State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond | ** Support | |
| Sunnyvale School District | ** Support | |
| Teachers Association of Long Beach | ** Support | |
| The Lincoln Middle School Parent-Teachers Association | ** Support | |
| Thirty-Third District PTA | ** Support | |
| Vision y Compromiso | ** Support | |
| western center on law & poverty | ** Support |
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 48 |
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 48
Author: Gonzalez (D), Fong (D), Ward (D) and Weber Pierson (D)
Amended: 10/7/25
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-1, 4/2/25
AYES: Pérez, Ochoa Bogh, Cabaldon, Cortese, Gonzalez, Laird
NOES: Choi
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-1, 4/29/25
AYES: Umberg, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NOES: Niello
NO VOTE RECORDED: Valladares
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25
AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab
NOES: Seyarto
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle
SENATE FLOOR: 29-7, 6/2/25
AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Niello, Seyarto, Strickland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado, Jones, Reyes, Valladares
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-3, 9/13/25 - See last page for vote
SUBJECT: Educational equity: discrimination prevention coordinators
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill requires the forthcoming Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to employ a Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Coordinator, a Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, and an LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator.
Assembly Amendments
replace the original contents of the bill with current provisions on antidiscrimination prevention coordinators.
ANALYSIS:
Existing federal law:
- Provides that, in part, “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program of activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Enforcement of compliance is initiated upon the filing of a complaint alleging a violation of Title IX. (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1681 et seq)
- Requires each school district and county office of education, or a local public or private agency that receives funding from the state or federal government, to designate a person to serve as the Title IX compliance coordinator to enforce compliance at the local level, including coordinating any complaints of non-compliance. (34 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 106.8(a))
Existing state law:
- States that it is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, including immigration status, equal rights, and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. States that the purpose is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies that will eliminate these discriminatory acts, including discrimination not just because of one protected trait, but also because of the combination of two or more protected bases. (Education Code (EC) § 200)
- States that no person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, including immigration status, in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance, or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid. (EC § 220)
- Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to monitor adherence to federal and state non-discrimination laws in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution as part of its regular monitoring and review of local educational agencies (LEAs), commonly known as the Categorical Program Monitoring process. Existing law requires CDE to assess whether LEAs have taken specified actions relative to anti-discrimination policies, complaint and investigation processes, documentation, protection from retaliation, and identification of the responsible LEA officer for ensuring compliance. (EC § 234 et seq.)
- Provides that the governing board of a school district has the primary responsibility for ensuring that school district programs and activities are free from discrimination based on age and characteristics protected pursuant to the Penal Code, and for monitoring compliance with any and all rules and regulations. (EC § 260)
- Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to establish and implement a system of complaint processing, known as the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP), for specified educational programs. (EC § 33315)
- Requires a LEA, if it finds merit in a complaint, or the SPI finds merit in an appeal, to take corrective actions consistent with the requirements of existing law that will provide a remedy to the affected pupil, or to all affected pupils, parents, and guardians. (EC § 33315)
This bill:
- Requires the forthcoming OCR to employ a Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, and an LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator.
- Requires the respective aforementioned Discrimination Prevention Coordinators to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
- Makes the provision of this bill contingent upon the enactment of AB 715. (Zbur and Addis, 2025)
Comments
- Need for this bill. According to the author, “Discrimination in our schools is unacceptable. We must ensure that students, families, educators, and schools that are navigating the state’s existing Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) for discrimination-related complaints have a clear understanding of the process, laws, and timeline. SB 48 intends to establish four coordinators under the Office of Civil Rights that will provide additional support to educators, LEAs, and parents to navigate the Uniformed Complaint Procedure process and ensure that complaints are processed in a timely manner.”
- The Office of Civil Rights. This bill requires the OCR to employ specified issue area based discrimination prevention coordinators. Notably, the OCR does not presently exist, but rather would be established under the administration of the Government Operations Agency (GovOps) by this bill’s companion measure, AB 715 (Zbur and Addis, 2025). In that measure, the stated purpose of the OCR is to work directly with LEAs to prevent and address discrimination and bias on the basis of characteristics protected by Section 220 of the Education Code. It also establishes a dedicated Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator. OCR’s principle responsibilities include the following:
- Providing education and educational resources to identify and prevent antisemitism and other forms of discrimination and bias, and share relevant laws and regulations with educational state agencies, LEAs, and community stakeholders.
- Annually submitting a report to GovOps, SPI, the executive director of State Board of Education (SBE), and the Legislature on the state of discrimination and bias in LEAs.
- The report shall include specific information on the type of discrimination or bias against a group protected by existing anti-discrimination laws and shall be made publicly available on the GovOps website.
- The report shall include specific information on the type of discrimination or bias against a group protected by existing anti-discrimination laws and shall be made publicly available on the GovOps website.
- Recommending strategies to combat discrimination or bias against groups protected by existing anti-discrimination laws in LEAs to CDE and LEAs, including proactive strategies using a restorative justice approach with a focus on repairing harm, fostering empathy, and healing relationships.
- Annually reviewing, beginning January 1, 2027, a report that CDE is required to provide to OCR with a summary of all complaints made pursuant to the existing UCP that involve discrimination.
- Requires the summary to include specific information on the type of discrimination or bias, any action taken by CDE in response to the complaint and the timeline for that action, and the disposition the complaint.
- Requires the summary to include specific information on the type of discrimination or bias, any action taken by CDE in response to the complaint and the timeline for that action, and the disposition the complaint.
- Advising on subsequent action regarding complaints made pursuant to the existing UCP that involve discrimination, including either or both of the following:
- Providing advice to CDE and the relevant county office of education, if appropriate, to implement corrective actions that may include, but not be limited to, targeted and intensive assistance for teachers, administrators, and staff to identify and proactively prevent antisemitism and other forms of discrimination and bias, and on restorative justice practices.
- Providing technical assistance to teachers, administrators, governing board or body members or other school staff, upon the request of the SPI, district superintendent, county superintendent of schools, or the governing board or body of a LEA, in order to resolve discrimination issues at schoolsites.
- Providing advice to CDE and the relevant county office of education, if appropriate, to implement corrective actions that may include, but not be limited to, targeted and intensive assistance for teachers, administrators, and staff to identify and proactively prevent antisemitism and other forms of discrimination and bias, and on restorative justice practices.
- Providing assistance, in consultation with the office of the Attorney General and CDE, on proper protocols to respond to discrimination complaints filed pursuant to the existing UCP.
- Developing a training module, in consultation with CDE, the executive director of SBE, and the office of the Attorney General (AG) and subject to an appropriation, regarding the appropriate manner to process and resolve discrimination complaints filed pursuant to the existing UCP.
- The training module shall include, but not be limited to, information on timelines, appeals, and protocols regarding the interaction with students, parents, and school staff, in resolving complaints in a timely manner.
- Providing education and educational resources to identify and prevent antisemitism and other forms of discrimination and bias, and share relevant laws and regulations with educational state agencies, LEAs, and community stakeholders.
A UCP complaint is a written and signed statement alleging a violation of federal or state laws or regulations, which may include an allegation of unlawful discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying. Importantly, although the OCR provides support on matters pertaining to discrimination based complaints, the Office itself is not intended to directly receive, investigate, or adjudicate formal complaints. Instead, those functions shall continue to follow the existing channels pursuant to the UCP.
- Discrimination Prevention Coordinators. This bill requires the OCR to employ a Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Coordinator, a Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, and an LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator. While it does not speak to specific roles, responsibilities, and duties of those respective coordinator positions, it is understood that the Legislature intends to further articulate such details in future legislation. Broadly speaking, they would serve as analogs to the defined role and responsibilities of the Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator, articulated in AB 715. These roles and responsibilities include the following:
- Developing, consulting on, and providing antisemitism education to teachers, staff, governing board or body members, administrators, and other local educational agency personnel to identify and proactively prevent antisemitism.
- Making recommendations, in coordination with the executive director of the SBE, to the Legislature on legislation necessary for the prevention of antisemitism in educational settings.
- Engaging and advising on the actions taken by the OCR on issues relating to antisemitism and the Jewish community.
- Engaging with LEAs on the handling of antisemitism.
- Tracking and reporting to the Legislature, the executive director of the SBE, and the SPI complaints and resolutions or lack of resolutions of complaints made under the UCP involving antisemitism in all LEAs.
- Engaging with relevant community stakeholders, as determined by the Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator, in the execution of their duties.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
Due to rule waivers, this version of SB 48 does not have a fiscal analysis from the Senate or Assembly Appropriations Committees.
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/12/25)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/12/25)
None received
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 55-3, 9/13/25
AYES: Addis, Aguiar-Curry, Ahrens, Alanis, Alvarez, Ávila Farías, Bains, Bauer-Kahan, Bennett, Berman, Boerner, Bryan, Calderon, Carrillo, Castillo, Connolly, Dixon, Flora, Fong, Gabriel, Gipson, Mark González, Haney, Harabedian, Hart, Irwin, Jackson, Krell, Lowenthal, McKinnor, Nguyen, Pacheco, Papan, Patel, Pellerin, Petrie-Norris, Quirk-Silva, Ramos, Ransom, Celeste Rodriguez, Michelle Rodriguez, Rogers, Blanca Rubio, Sanchez, Schiavo, Schultz, Sharp-Collins, Soria, Stefani, Valencia, Ward, Wicks, Wilson, Zbur, Rivas
NOES: DeMaio, Gallagher, Johnson
NO VOTE RECORDED: Arambula, Bonta, Caloza, Chen, Davies, Elhawary, Ellis, Garcia, Jeff Gonzalez, Hadwick, Hoover, Kalra, Lackey, Lee, Macedo, Muratsuchi, Ortega, Patterson, Solache, Ta, Tangipa, Wallis
Prepared by: Therresa Austin / ED. / (916) 651-4105
7/21/26 10:58:29
**** END ****
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 48 |
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Bill No: SB 48
Author: Gonzalez (D), Fong (D), Ward (D) and Weber Pierson (D)
Amended: 9/9/25 in Assembly
Vote: 21
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-1, 4/2/25
AYES: Pérez, Ochoa Bogh, Cabaldon, Cortese, Gonzalez, Laird
NOES: Choi
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-1, 4/29/25
AYES: Umberg, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NOES: Niello
NO VOTE RECORDED: Valladares
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25
AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab
NOES: Seyarto
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle
SENATE FLOOR: 29-7, 6/2/25
AYES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NOES: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Niello, Seyarto, Strickland
NO VOTE RECORDED: Hurtado, Jones, Reyes, Valladares
ASSEMBLY FLOOR: 49-2, 9/13/25 – Roll call not available
SUBJECT: Educational equity: discrimination prevention coordinators
SOURCE: Author
DIGEST:
This bill requires the forthcoming Office of Civil Rights (OCR) to employ a Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Coordinator, a Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, and an LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator.
Assembly Amendments
replace the original contents of the bill with current provisions on antidiscrimination prevention coordinators.
ANALYSIS:
Existing federal law:
- Provides that, in part, “no person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any educational program of activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Enforcement of compliance is initiated upon the filing of a complaint alleging a violation of Title IX. (Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 to the 1964 Civil Rights Act, United States Code (U.S.C.) § 1681 et seq)
- Requires each school district and county office of education, or a local public or private agency that receives funding from the state or federal government, to designate a person to serve as the Title IX compliance coordinator to enforce compliance at the local level, including coordinating any complaints of non-compliance. (34 Code of Federal Regulations (C.F.R.) § 106.8(a))
Existing state law:
- States that it is the policy of the State of California to afford all persons in public schools, regardless of their disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, including immigration status, equal rights, and opportunities in the educational institutions of the state. States that the purpose is to prohibit acts that are contrary to that policy and to provide remedies that will eliminate these discriminatory acts, including discrimination not just because of one protected trait, but also because of the combination of two or more protected bases. (Education Code (EC) § 200)
- States that no person shall be subjected to discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, including immigration status, in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance, or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid. (EC § 220)
- Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to monitor adherence to federal and state non-discrimination laws in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution as part of its regular monitoring and review of local educational agencies (LEAs), commonly known as the Categorical Program Monitoring process. Existing law requires CDE to assess whether LEAs have taken specified actions relative to anti-discrimination policies, complaint and investigation processes, documentation, protection from retaliation, and identification of the responsible LEA officer for ensuring compliance. (EC § 234 et seq.)
- Provides that the governing board of a school district has the primary responsibility for ensuring that school district programs and activities are free from discrimination based on age and characteristics protected pursuant to the Penal Code, and for monitoring compliance with any and all rules and regulations. (EC § 260)
- Requires the Superintendent of Public Instruction (SPI) to establish and implement a system of complaint processing, known as the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP), for specified educational programs. (EC § 33315)
- Requires a LEA, if it finds merit in a complaint, or the SPI finds merit in an appeal, to take corrective actions consistent with the requirements of existing law that will provide a remedy to the affected pupil, or to all affected pupils, parents, and guardians. (EC § 33315)
This bill:
- Requires the forthcoming OCR to employ a Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, and an LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator.
- Requires the respective aforementioned Discrimination Prevention Coordinators to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
- Makes the provision of this bill contingent upon the enactment of AB 715. (Zbur and Addis, 2025)
Comments
- Need for this bill. According to the author, “Discrimination in our schools is unacceptable. We must ensure that students, families, educators, and schools that are navigating the state’s existing Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) for discrimination-related complaints have a clear understanding of the process, laws, and timeline. SB 48 intends to establish four coordinators under the Office of Civil Rights that will provide additional support to educators, LEAs, and parents to navigate the Uniformed Complaint Procedure process and ensure that complaints are processed in a timely manner.”
- The Office of Civil Rights. This bill requires the OCR to employ specified issue area based discrimination prevention coordinators. Notably, the OCR does not presently exist, but rather would be established under the administration of the Government Operations Agency (GovOps) by this bill’s companion measure, AB 715 (Zbur and Addis, 2025). In that measure, the stated purpose of the OCR is to work directly with LEAs to prevent and address discrimination and bias on the basis of characteristics protected by Section 220 of the Education Code. It also establishes a dedicated Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator. OCR’s principle responsibilities include the following:
- Providing education and educational resources to identify and prevent antisemitism and other forms of discrimination and bias, and share relevant laws and regulations with educational state agencies, LEAs, and community stakeholders.
- Annually submitting a report to GovOps, SPI, the executive director of State Board of Education (SBE), and the Legislature on the state of discrimination and bias in LEAs.
- The report shall include specific information on the type of discrimination or bias against a group protected by existing anti-discrimination laws and shall be made publicly available on the GovOps website.
- The report shall include specific information on the type of discrimination or bias against a group protected by existing anti-discrimination laws and shall be made publicly available on the GovOps website.
- Recommending strategies to combat discrimination or bias against groups protected by existing anti-discrimination laws in LEAs to CDE and LEAs, including proactive strategies using a restorative justice approach with a focus on repairing harm, fostering empathy, and healing relationships.
- Annually reviewing, beginning January 1, 2027, a report that CDE is required to provide to OCR with a summary of all complaints made pursuant to the existing UCP that involve discrimination.
- Requires the summary to include specific information on the type of discrimination or bias, any action taken by CDE in response to the complaint and the timeline for that action, and the disposition the complaint.
- Requires the summary to include specific information on the type of discrimination or bias, any action taken by CDE in response to the complaint and the timeline for that action, and the disposition the complaint.
- Advising on subsequent action regarding complaints made pursuant to the existing UCP that involve discrimination, including either or both of the following:
- Providing advice to CDE and the relevant county office of education, if appropriate, to implement corrective actions that may include, but not be limited to, targeted and intensive assistance for teachers, administrators, and staff to identify and proactively prevent antisemitism and other forms of discrimination and bias, and on restorative justice practices.
- Providing technical assistance to teachers, administrators, governing board or body members or other school staff, upon the request of the SPI, district superintendent, county superintendent of schools, or the governing board or body of a LEA, in order to resolve discrimination issues at schoolsites.
- Providing advice to CDE and the relevant county office of education, if appropriate, to implement corrective actions that may include, but not be limited to, targeted and intensive assistance for teachers, administrators, and staff to identify and proactively prevent antisemitism and other forms of discrimination and bias, and on restorative justice practices.
- Providing assistance, in consultation with the office of the Attorney General and CDE, on proper protocols to respond to discrimination complaints filed pursuant to the existing UCP.
- Developing a training module, in consultation with CDE, the executive director of SBE, and the office of the Attorney General (AG) and subject to an appropriation, regarding the appropriate manner to process and resolve discrimination complaints filed pursuant to the existing UCP.
- The training module shall include, but not be limited to, information on timelines, appeals, and protocols regarding the interaction with students, parents, and school staff, in resolving complaints in a timely manner.
- Providing education and educational resources to identify and prevent antisemitism and other forms of discrimination and bias, and share relevant laws and regulations with educational state agencies, LEAs, and community stakeholders.
A UCP complaint is a written and signed statement alleging a violation of federal or state laws or regulations, which may include an allegation of unlawful discrimination, harassment, intimidation, or bullying. Importantly, although the OCR provides support on matters pertaining to discrimination based complaints, the Office itself is not intended to directly receive, investigate, or adjudicate formal complaints. Instead, those functions shall continue to follow the existing channels pursuant to the UCP.
- Discrimination Prevention Coordinators. This bill requires the OCR to employ a Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Coordinator, a Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, and an LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator. While it does not speak to specific roles, responsibilities, and duties of those respective coordinator positions, it is understood that the Legislature intends to further articulate such details in future legislation. Broadly speaking, they would serve as analogs to the defined role and responsibilities of the Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator, articulated in AB 715. These roles and responsibilities include the following:
- Developing, consulting on, and providing antisemitism education to teachers, staff, governing board or body members, administrators, and other local educational agency personnel to identify and proactively prevent antisemitism.
- Making recommendations, in coordination with the executive director of the SBE, to the Legislature on legislation necessary for the prevention of antisemitism in educational settings.
- Engaging and advising on the actions taken by the OCR on issues relating to antisemitism and the Jewish community.
- Engaging with LEAs on the handling of antisemitism.
- Tracking and reporting to the Legislature, the executive director of the SBE, and the SPI complaints and resolutions or lack of resolutions of complaints made under the UCP involving antisemitism in all LEAs.
- Engaging with relevant community stakeholders, as determined by the Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator, in the execution of their duties.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No
Due to rule waivers, this version of SB 48 does not have a fiscal analysis from the Senate or Assembly Appropriations Committees.
SUPPORT: (Verified 9/12/25)
None received
OPPOSITION: (Verified 9/12/25)
None received
Prepared by: Therresa Austin / ED. / (916) 651-4105
9/13/25 0:41:25
**** END ****
SENATE THIRD READING
STR Bill Id:SB 48
Author:(Gonzalez, et al.)
As Amended Ver:September 9, 2025
Majority vote
SUMMARY
Requires, contingent upon the enactment of AB 715 of this Session, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), as created by that measure within the Government Operations Agency (GovOps), to employ a Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, and an LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, all to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
Major Provisions
- Requires that the OCR, as proposed to be established by AB 715 of the 2025-26 Session, employ the following individuals:
- A Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate;
- A Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate;
- A Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate; and
- A LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
- Makes the act operative only if Assembly Bill 715 of the 2025–26 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2026.
COMMENTS
New bill. When this bill was heard in this Committee on July 2, 2025, it pertained to immigration enforcement at schools. It has recently been amended to remove those provisions and instead require the establishment of discrimination prevention coordinators, contingent upon the enactment of AB 715 (Zbur and Addis) of the 2025-26 Session.
Office of Civil Rights. California has the responsibility under state and federal law to enforce state and federal civil rights protections in public education.
Federal law vests responsibility for monitoring and enforcing multiple education statutes to state education agencies (SEAs). In California, the CDE is the state agency responsible for ensuring compliance with state and federal civil rights laws and regulations. To do so, the CDE maintains an Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO), which conducts compliance activities related to numerous state and federal laws.
State law and regulations also require the CDE to administer the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) which generally allow individuals to file complaints regarding alleged violations of law with LEAs and appeal their decisions to the CDE if desired. This includes violations of civil rights statutes.
Historically, the federal government has also enforced civil rights laws. However, the Trump administration has virtually eliminated the federal role in civil rights enforcement in education, closing numerous field offices and leaving the fate of hundreds of cases pending with the United States Department of Education unclear.
In light of this diminished federal role, it is reasonable for California to strengthen its compliance monitoring and enforcement of civil rights protections in public education.
This bill proposes to create several discrimination prevention coordinators, to be housed within the OCR proposed to be created by AB 715 within the Government Operations Agency (GovOps). The purpose of this office would be to work directly with LEAs to prevent and address discrimination and bias. It would do so by providing education and educational resources to identify and prevent antisemitism and other forms of discrimination and bias, reporting on the state of discrimination and bias in public schools, recommending strategies to combat discrimination or bias, advising on subsequent action regarding complaints that involve discrimination, and providing protocols to respond to discrimination complaints, among other responsibilities.
The establishment of a new OCR raises a number of governance issues. While the missions of the CDE’s compliance functions and the proposed OCR have differences, there appears to be significant duplication in reporting, advising, and implementing correction plans related to complaints. Even with distinct responsibilities, having two state agencies working with LEAs on issues of discrimination may cause confusion and disruption. It is also unclear how these functions would be carried out by GovOps, an agency with no expertise in educational civil rights compliance, unclear authority to engage in compliance activities, and no direct relationship with schools. The Assembly may wish to consider that the appropriate entity in which to vest these responsibilities is the CDE, consistent with its expertise and its longstanding mandate under state and federal law. Renaming the existing OEO the OCR, and increasing its resources, could accomplish this goal without creating duplication and disruption at the local level.
Duties of coordinators not identified. Unlike the Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator position proposed to be established by AB 715, this bill does not specify the duties and authority of the discrimination prevention coordinators it would establish. The Committee may wish to consider that if the duties of the coordinators, when and if they are established, vary by coordinator position, this would likely exacerbate the governance issues identified above.
Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator. AB 715 also creates an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator, and requires that this position:
- Develop, consult on, and provide antisemitism education to teachers, staff, governing board or body members, administrators, and other LEA personnel to identify and proactively prevent antisemitism;
- Make recommendations, in coordination with the executive director of the SBE, to the Legislature, on legislation necessary for the prevention of antisemitism in educational settings;
- Engage and advise on the actions taken by the office on issues relating to antisemitism and the Jewish community; and
- Engage with local educational agencies on the handling of antisemitism.
AB 715 also requires that the United States National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, published by the Biden Administration on May 25, 2023, be a basis to inform the Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator on how to identify, respond to, prevent, and counter antisemitism.
According to the Author
“Discrimination in our schools is unacceptable. We must ensure that students, families, educators, and schools that are navigating the state’s existing Uniform Complaint Procedure (UCP) for discrimination-related complaints have a clear understanding of the process, laws, and timeline. SB 48 intends to establish four coordinators under the Office of Civil Rights that will provide additional support to educators, LEAs, and parents to navigate the Uniform Complaint Procedure process and ensure that complaints are processed in a timely manner.”
Arguments in Support
None on this version of the bill
Arguments in Opposition
None on this version of the bill
FISCAL COMMENTS
According to the Assembly Appropriations Committee, ongoing General Fund costs of an unknown amount, but likely at least $1,000,000, for the Office of Civil Rights, within the Government Operations Agency, to employ four separate Discrimination Prevention Coordinators. However, Senate Bill 105 (Wiener), of the current legislative session, requires the Director of Finance to provide additional General Fund or any other available source of funding for personnel and other resources necessary to implement this bill, if enacted into law.
VOTES
SENATE FLOOR: 29-7-4
YES: Allen, Archuleta, Arreguín, Ashby, Becker, Blakespear, Cabaldon, Caballero, Cervantes, Cortese, Durazo, Gonzalez, Grayson, Laird, Limón, McGuire, McNerney, Menjivar, Ochoa Bogh, Padilla, Pérez, Richardson, Rubio, Smallwood-Cuevas, Stern, Umberg, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NO: Alvarado-Gil, Choi, Dahle, Grove, Niello, Seyarto, Strickland
ABS, ABST OR NV: Hurtado, Jones, Reyes, Valladares
ASM EDUCATION: 7-2-0
YES: Muratsuchi, Addis, Alvarez, Bonta, Garcia, Lowenthal, Patel
NO: Hoover, Castillo
UPDATED
VERSION: September 9, 2025
CONSULTANT: Tanya Lieberman / ED. / (916) 319-2087 FN: 0002124
Date of Hearing: September 12, 2025
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Al Muratsuchi, Chair
SBPCA Bill Id:SB 48
Author:(Gonzalez) – As Amended Ver:September 9, 2025
[Note: This bill was previously heard by this Committee on July 2, 2025. It has since been amended to address a new topic in this Committee’s jurisdiction.]
SENATE VOTE: 29-7
SUBJECT: Educational equity: discrimination prevention coordinators.
SUMMARY: Requires, contingent upon the enactment of AB 715 of this Session, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR), as created by that measure within the Government Operations Agency (GovOps), to employ a Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, a Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, and an LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, all to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. Specifically, this bill:
- Requires that the OCR, as proposed to be established by AB 715 of the 2025-26 Session, employ the following individuals:
- A Religious Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate;
- A Race and Ethnicity Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate;
- A Gender Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate; and
- A LGBTQ Discrimination Prevention Coordinator, to be appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate.
- Makes the act operative only if Assembly Bill 715 of the 2025–26 Regular Session is enacted and becomes effective on or before January 1, 2026.
EXISTING LAW:
- Prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or any other characteristic that is contained in the definition of hate crimes set forth in Section 422.55 of the Penal Code, including immigration status, in any program or activity conducted by an educational institution that receives, or benefits from, state financial assistance, or enrolls pupils who receive state student financial aid. (Education Code (EC) 220)
- Requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to monitor, through its federal program monitoring process, whether LEAs have:
- Adopted a policy that prohibits discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying based on the actual or perceived characteristics defined as hate crimes, and immigration status, disability, gender, gender identity, gender expression, nationality, race or ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or association with a person or group with one or more of these actual or perceived characteristics. The policy must include a statement that the policy applies to all acts related to school activity or school attendance occurring within a school under the jurisdiction of the superintendent of the school district;
- Adopted a process for receiving and investigating complaints relating to discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying;
- Publicized antidiscrimination, anti-harassment, anti-intimidation, and anti-bullying policies, including information about the manner in which to file a complaint, to students, parents, employees, agents of the governing board, and the general public;
- Provided certificated school employees in schools serving students in grades 7 to 12, information on existing schoolsite and community resources related to the support of LGBTQ students, or related to the support of students who may face bias or bullying on the basis of religious affiliation, or perceived religious affiliation;
- Posted the policy in all schools and offices, including staff lounges and student government meeting rooms;
- Maintained documentation of complaints and their resolution for a minimum of one review cycle;
- Ensured that complainants are protected from retaliation and that their identity remains confidential, as appropriate; and
- Identified a responsible LEA officer for ensuring compliance. (EC 234.1)
- Prohibits a teacher from giving instruction and a school district shall not sponsor any activity that promotes a discriminatory bias on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, or sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in EC 220. (EC 51500)
- Prohibits the SBE and any governing board from adopting any textbooks or other instructional materials for use in the public schools that contain any matter reflecting adversely upon persons on the basis of race or ethnicity, gender, religion, disability, nationality, or sexual orientation, or because of a characteristic listed in Section 220. (EC 51501)
- Requires the CDE, by July 1, 2021, to develop resources or, as appropriate, update existing resources for in-service training on schoolsite and community resources for the support of LBGTQ students, and strategies to increase support for LGBTQ students and improve overall school climate. Requires the resources to be designed for use in schools operated by a school district, county office of education (COE), and charter schools serving students in grades 7 to 12, inclusive. Encourages schools serving students in grades 7 to 12 to use these resources to provide training at least once every two years to teachers and other certificated employees. (EC 218)
- Requires the CDE to display current information, and periodically update information, on curricula and other resources that specifically address bias-related discrimination, harassment, intimidation, cyber sexual bullying, and bullying on its website. (EC 234.2)
- Requires the CDE to develop, and post on its website, a model handout describing the policies addressing bias-related discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying in schools. (EC 234.3)
- Requires a charter school to include in its petition to establish the charter school the procedures that the charter school will follow to ensure the safety of students and staff (EC 47605).
- Requires schools districts, COEs, state special schools and diagnostic centers operated by the CDE, and charter schools to provide annual training, using the online training module provided by the State Department of Social Services (DSS), to their employees who are mandated reporters during the course of the school year, and to develop a process for all persons required to receive training within the first six weeks of each school year, or within the first six weeks of the person’s employment. (EC 44691)
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS:
Need for the bill. According to the author, “Discrimination in our schools is unacceptable. We must ensure that students, families, educators, and schools that are navigating the state’s existing Uniform Complaint Procedure (UCP) for discrimination-related complaints have a clear understanding of the process, laws, and timeline. SB 48 intends to establish four coordinators under the Office of Civil Rights that will provide additional support to educators, LEAs, and parents to navigate the Uniform Complaint Procedure process and ensure that complaints are processed in a timely manner.”
New bill. When this bill was heard in this Committee on July 2, 2025, it pertained to immigration enforcement at schools. It has recently been amended to remove those provisions and instead require the establishment of discrimination prevention coordinators, contingent upon the enactment of AB 715 (Zbur and Addis) of the 2025-26 Session.
Office of Civil Rights. California has the responsibility under state and federal law to enforce state and federal civil rights protections in public education.
Federal law vests responsibility for monitoring and enforcing multiple education statutes to state education agencies (SEAs). In California, the CDE is the state agency responsible for ensuring compliance with state and federal civil rights laws and regulations. To do so, the CDE maintains an Office of Equal Opportunity (OEO), which conducts compliance activities related to:
- Guidelines for Eliminating Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of Race, Color, National Origin, Sex, and Handicap in Vocational Education Programs, March 21, 1979, (34 CFR, Part 100, Appendix B);
- Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and implementing regulations (34 CFR, Part 100), which prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin;
- Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990 and the implementation of 28 CFR, Part 35;
- Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 and the implementation of 34 CFR, Part 106 which prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex/gender;
- Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and implementing regulations (34 CFR, Part 104) which prohibit discrimination on the basis of handicap;
- California Education Code, Education Equity section 200, et seq; and
- California Code of Regulations, Title 5, section 4900, et seq.
State law and regulations also require the CDE to administer the Uniform Complaint Procedures (UCP) which generally allow individuals to file complaints regarding alleged violations of law with LEAs and appeal their decisions to the CDE if desired. This includes violations of civil rights statutes.
Historically, the federal government has also enforced civil rights laws. However, the Trump administration has virtually eliminated the federal role in civil rights enforcement in education, closing numerous field offices and leaving the fate of hundreds of cases pending with the United States Department of Education unclear.
In light of this diminished federal role, it is reasonable for California to strengthen its compliance monitoring and enforcement of civil rights protections in public education.
This bill proposes to create several discrimination prevention coordinators, to be housed within the OCR proposed to be created by AB 715 within the Government Operations Agency (GovOps). The purpose of this office would be to work directly with LEAs to prevent and address discrimination and bias. It would do so by providing education and educational resources to identify and prevent antisemitism and other forms of discrimination and bias, reporting on the state of discrimination and bias in public schools, recommending strategies to combat discrimination or bias, advising on subsequent action regarding complaints that involve discrimination, and providing protocols to respond to discrimination complaints, among other responsibilities.
The establishment of a new OCR raises a number of governance issues. While the missions of the CDE’s compliance functions and the proposed OCR have differences, there appears to be significant duplication in reporting, advising, and implementing correction plans related to complaints. Even with distinct responsibilities, having two state agencies working with LEAs on issues of discrimination may cause confusion and disruption. It is also unclear how these functions would be carried out by GovOps, an agency with no expertise in educational civil rights compliance, unclear authority to engage in compliance activities, and no direct relationship with schools. The Committee may wish to consider that the appropriate entity in which to vest these responsibilities is the CDE, consistent with its expertise and its longstanding mandate under state and federal law. Renaming the existing OEO the OCR, and increasing its resources, could accomplish this goal without creating duplication and disruption at the local level.
Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator. AB 715 also creates an Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator, and requires that this position:
- Develop, consult on, and provide antisemitism education to teachers, staff, governing board or body members, administrators, and other LEA personnel to identify and proactively prevent antisemitism;
- Make recommendations, in coordination with the executive director of the SBE, to the Legislature, on legislation necessary for the prevention of antisemitism in educational settings;
- Engage and advise on the actions taken by the office on issues relating to antisemitism and the Jewish community; and
- Engage with local educational agencies on the handling of antisemitism.
AB 715 also requires that the United States National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, published by the Biden Administration on May 25, 2023, be a basis to inform the Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator on how to identify, respond to, prevent, and counter antisemitism.
Duties of coordinators not identified. Unlike the Antisemitism Prevention Coordinator position proposed to be established by AB 715, this bill does not specify the duties and authority of the discrimination prevention coordinators it would establish. The Committee may wish to consider that if the duties of the coordinators were vary by coordinator position, this would likely create confusion and disruption at the local level.
Related legislation. AB 5 (Zbur), Chapter 220, Statutes of 2023 requires the California Department of Education (CDE) to complete the development of an online training curriculum and online delivery platform by July 1, 2025, and requires local educational agencies (LEAs) to provide and require at least one hour of training annually to all certificated staff, beginning with the 2025-26 school year through the 2029-30 school year, on cultural competency in supporting lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, and questioning (LGBTQ) students. Requires the LEA to maintain documentation on the completion of the training by each employee, as specified.
AB 1327 (Weber), Chapter 366, Statutes of 2023 requires the California Interscholastic Federation (CIF) to report to the Legislature every three years on instances of racial discrimination or harassment, and requires the CIF to develop, in consultation with community organizations that represent the interests of ethnic groups and communities of color, a standardized incident form to track instances of racial discrimination or harassment that occur at high school sporting games or sporting events, and annually post those results on the CIF website.
SB 857 (Laird) of the 2023-24 Session would require the SPI, on or before July 1, 2024, to convene an advisory task force to identify the statewide needs of LGBTQ students and report its findings to the Legislature, the SPI, and the Governor by January 1, 2026.
AB 493 (Gloria) Chapter 775, Statutes of 2019, requires that, no later than July 1, 2021, the CDE develop resources or update existing resources for in-service training on schoolsite and community resources for the support of LGBTQ students, for use in LEAs, including charter schools serving students in grades 7-12. Requires the CDE to periodically provide online trainings on this topic that can be accessed on a statewide basis.
AB 2153 (Thurmond) of the 2017-18 Session would have required schools to provide in-service training to teachers on school site and community resources available for the support of LGBTQ students. This bill was vetoed by Governor Brown, who stated:
I signed AB 827 (O'Donnell) in 2015, which required the Department of Education, as part of its compliance monitoring, to assess whether local schools have provided information to certificated staff serving of grades 7-12 on school site and community resources for LGBTQ students. Current law also requires the Department to monitor local schools to ensure the adoptions of policies prohibiting discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying on the basis of sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or gender expression.
If local schools find that more training or resources on this topic is needed, they have the flexibility to use their resources as they see best.
AB 827 (O’Donnell), Chapter 562, Statues of 2015, as it passed this Committee, would have required schools to provide in-service training to teachers on school site and community resources available for the support of LGBTQ students. The bill was later amended to require CDE, as part of its compliance monitoring, to assess whether LEAs have provided information to certificated staff serving grades 7-12 on schoolsite and community resources for LGBTQ students.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
None on file
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by: Debbie Look / ED. / (916) 319-2087
SENATE RULES COMMITTEE Office of Senate Floor Analyses (916) 651-1520 Fax: (916) 327-4478 | SB 48 |
THIRD READING
Bill No: SB 48
Author: Gonzalez (D), et al.
Amended: 4/23/25
Vote: 27 - Urgency
SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE: 6-1, 4/2/25
AYES: Pérez, Ochoa Bogh, Cabaldon, Cortese, Gonzalez, Laird
NOES: Choi
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE: 11-1, 4/29/25
AYES: Umberg, Allen, Arreguín, Ashby, Caballero, Durazo, Laird, Stern, Wahab, Weber Pierson, Wiener
NOES: Niello
NO VOTE RECORDED: Valladares
SENATE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE: 5-1, 5/23/25
AYES: Caballero, Cabaldon, Grayson, Richardson, Wahab
NOES: Seyarto
NO VOTE RECORDED: Dahle
SUBJECT: Immigration enforcement: schoolsites: prohibitions on access and sharing information
SOURCE: State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tony Thurmond and
CFT- A Union of Educators & Classified Professionals
DIGEST:
This bill, an urgency measure, prohibits a local educational agency (LEA), to the extent possible, from granting United States immigration authorities access to a schoolsite or its pupils or consenting to searches without a valid judicial warrant or court order. It further specifies how an LEA is to respond to requests from immigration authorities with or without a valid judicial warrant or court order.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law:
- Prohibits, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state- or federally supported educational program, school officials and employees of a school district, county office of education, or charter school from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of students or their family members. (Education Code (EC) § 234.7 et seq.)
- Requires the Attorney General (AG), by April 1, 2018, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law, and ensure that public schools remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of immigration status. Existing law requires that the AG in developing the model policies consider all of the following:
- Procedures related to requests for access to school grounds for purposes related to immigration enforcement.
- Procedures for LEA employees to notify the superintendent of the school district or their designee, the superintendent of the county office of education or their designee, or the principal of the charter school or their designee, as applicable, if an individual requests or gains access to school grounds for purposes related to immigration enforcement.
- Procedures for responding to requests for personal information about students or their family members for purposes of immigration enforcement. (EC § 234.7 (f)(1)(A-C inclusive))
- Requires all school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to adopt the AG’s model policies or equivalent policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement. (EC § 234.7 (g) and Government Code § 7284.8 (a))
- Under the California Values Act, generally prohibits California law enforcement agencies from investigating, interrogating, detaining, detecting, or arresting persons for immigration enforcement purposes. It further provides certain limited exceptions to this prohibition, including transfers of persons pursuant to a judicial warrant and providing certain information to federal authorities regarding serious and violent felons in custody. (Government Code § 7284 -7284.21, inclusive)
- Prohibits a school district from permitting access to pupil records to a person without parental consent or under judicial order, with some exceptions as specified. (EC § 49076)
- Authorizes school districts to release information from pupil records to certain organizations and appropriate persons for education related purposes as specified. (EC § 49076)
- Requires school districts to notify parents in writing of their rights, including the types of pupil records kept by the district, the position of the official responsible for the records, the policies for reviewing and expunging records, and the criteria used by the district to define “school officials and employees” and to determine “legitimate educational interest.” (EC § 49063)
- Under the Information Practices Act defines personal information to mean any information that is maintained by an agency that identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited to, the individual’s name, social security number, physical description, home address, home telephone number, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. It includes statements made by, or attributed to, the individual. (Civil Code § 1798.9)
- Existing federal law, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prohibits federal funds from being provided to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of a pupil’s educational records to any individual, agency, or organization without the written consent of the pupil’s parents. FERPA exempts from the general parental consent requirement certain kinds of disclosures, including disclosures to state and local officials for the purposes of conducting truancy proceedings, a criminal investigation, auditing or evaluating an educational program, or in relation to the application for financial aid. (United States Code, Title 20, Section 1232g and Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34, Sections 99.31)
This bill:
- Prohibits a LEA and its personnel, to the extent possible, from doing any of the following unless pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order:
- Grant permission to access the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite to an immigration authority.
- Produce a pupil for questioning by an immigration authority at a schoolsite.
- Consent to a search of any kind of the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite by an immigration authority.
- When immigration authority, with a valid judicial warrant or court order to access a schoolsite, have a pupil produced for questioning at the schoolsite or conduct a search of any type at the schoolsite, requires the responding LEA and its personnel to do both of the following:
- Request from the immigration authority valid personal identification
and a written statement of purpose, and retain a copy of the provided documentation.
- As early as possible, notify the designated LEA administrator of the
request and advice the immigration authority that the LEA administrator is required to provide direction before access to the schoolsite or pupil may be granted.
- When immigration authority, without a valid judicial warrant or court order, requests access to the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite, requests a pupil be produced for questioning at a schoolsite, or demands to conduct a search of any type of the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite, requires the responding LEA to do all of the following:
- As early as possible, notify the designated LEA administrator of the request.
- Deny the immigration authority access to the nonpublic areas of the schoolsite.
- Make a reasonable effort to have the denial witnessed and documented.
- Prohibits an LEA and its personnel from disclosing or providing in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil, pupil’s family and household, school employee, or teacher, including but not limited to, personal information as defined in state law, information about a pupil’s home, and information about a pupil’s travel schedule, to an immigration authority without a valid judicial warrant or court order directing the LEA or its personnel to do so. This bill requires that any disclosure of a pupil’s education records pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order satisfy the parent notification requirements in accordance with FERPA.
- States that this bill’s provisions do not prohibit or restrict any governmental entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local governmental entity, pursuant to federal immigration law as specified.
- Requires the AG to publish model policies to assist K-12 schools in responding to immigration issues pursuant to this bill.
- Defines all of the following terms for purposes of this bill:
- Immigration authority to mean any federal, state, or local officer, employee, or person performing immigration enforcement functions.
- “Immigration enforcement” to include any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person’s presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States.
- Local educational agency to mean a school district, county office of education, or charter school.
- Schoolsite to mean an individual school campus of a school district, county office of education, or charter school, an area where a local educational agency’s school-sponsored activity is currently being held, or a school bus or other transportation provided by a local educational agency.
- Includes an urgency clause, based on the need to ensure that schools continue to provide children and their families guaranteed access to school campuses without contributing to fear of deportation, harassment, or intimidation by immigration authorities and to retain critically needed attendance-based funding, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
- Makes a number of related findings and declarations.
- Expresses the specified legislative intent related to preserving safe and secure learning environments and immigration enforcement.
Comments
- Need for this bill. According to the author, “All children, regardless of immigration status, have the constitutional right to a free education. With each day that passes, the federal government’s efforts to target immigrant communities further jeopardize California’s ability to uphold that constitutional right.
“Raids and threats of deportation across our state have ignited fear and anxiety among families. Parents are scared to send their children to school, and children themselves are fearful that they will return home after the school day to never to see their loved ones again. These actions have alarming impacts on student learning, mental health, well-being, and attendance—which in turn impacts school funding and the quality of education students receive. Our schools must not be a battleground for immigration enforcement. Senate Bill 48 sends a clear message: California is committed to protecting our students and their families.
“Specifically, SB 48 would prevent school personnel from permitting immigration law enforcement officers access to a school campus without a judicial warrant. This bill will also prevent school personnel from disclosing educational records or any information about a pupil, pupil’s family and household, school employees, or teacher to an immigration law enforcement officer without a judicial warrant.
“Schools shape the next generation of leaders and must continue to be a safe, nurturing environment for students to learn and grow together—without disruption and without living in fear that their families will be torn apart.”
- AG model policies instruct schools how to respond to immigration enforcement activity. AB 699 (O’Donnell and Chiu, Chapter 493, Statutes of 2017) required the California AG to issue and publish model policies by April 2018 that limit assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, thereby ensuring that public schools remain safe and accessible to all California residents regardless of their immigration status. It further mandated that all LEAs adopt these model policies or equivalent policies by July 2018. The AG’s guidance and model policies were initially issued in 2018 and subsequently updated in December 2024. This bill attempts to further prescribe how LEAs manage interactions with immigration authorities and requests for information from immigration authorities. It also seeks to ensure consistency with AG model policy and the bill’s provisions by requiring the AG to publish model policies to assist K-12 in responding to immigration issues specified in this bill.
- Enforcement actions in or near protected areas. On January 20, 2025, the acting director of the US Department of Homeland Security issued a memo, effectively rescinding special protection of immigration enforcement activity in or near certain areas. The formerly protected areas included, among other areas, places where children gather, such as schools, daycares, pre-schools, and other early learning programs, primary and secondary schools, college campuses as well as education-related activities. This news raised concerns by state lawmakers regarding the safety of students in educational settings. This bill aims to provide clear instruction to LEAs for handling situations that involve immigration enforcement activities, dictating action steps based on whether a valid judicial warrant or court order is presented.
- Right to education. As stated in the AG’s “Guidance and Model Policies to Assist California’s K-12 Schools in Responding to Immigration Issues,” although California cannot control the actions of federal immigration-enforcement agencies, federal and California laws empower schools to welcome all students and to reassure them of their educational rights and opportunities. Under the US Constitution, all students have a right to receive an education without discrimination based on immigration status. In Plyler v. Doe, the US Supreme Court recognized that undocumented immigrants are guaranteed due process and equal protection rights under the US Constitution and that children cannot be denied equal access to a public education on the basis of their immigration status. Therefore, schools must provide free public education to all students, regardless of their immigration status and regardless of the citizenship status of the students’ parents or guardians. Similarly, California law affirms the equal educational rights of immigrant students. Under the California Constitution, all students and staff regardless of immigration status have the inalienable right to attend campuses, which are safe, secure, and peaceful. State statute further prohibits discrimination based on a student’s immigration status.
- Student information and privacy. As noted in the background section of this analysis, federal statute under FERPA mandates that educational institutions must not disclose education records or personally identifiable information unless under limited circumstances. It provides certain rights for parents regarding their children’s educational records. Under FERPA, a school generally may not disclose personal information from a student’s education records to a third party unless the student’s parent has provided prior written consent. However, there are a few exceptions (see the background section of this analysis). As it relates to information sharing, this bill prohibits LEAs and its staff from sharing with immigration authorities a student’s education records or any other information about the student. This includes personal information about the student’s home, their travel plans, and their family. Consistent with FERPA rules, the LEA and its staff must have a valid court order or warrant to do so. Any release of a student’s education records that is allowed by a valid court warrant or order would have to meet the parent notification standards so that a parent may seek protective action as outlined in FERPA. This bill additionally prohibits information sharing as specified about a school employee or a teacher.
FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: Yes
According to the Senate Appropriations Committee analysis, this bill will have the following fiscal impact:
- The bill’s requirements could result in a reimbursable state mandate. These activities include the development of policies, procedures, and training for faculty and staff with responding to requests from immigration authorities. Assuming a cost of $1,000 for each LEA, the one-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs would be in the low millions of dollars statewide.
- The Attorney General could incur one-time General Fund costs, potentially in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, to develop and publish model policies for school districts.
SUPPORT: (Verified 5/23/25)
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond (co-source)
CFT-A Union of Educators & Classified Professionals AFT, AFL-CIO (co-source)
Alameda County
Alameda County Office of Education
Alliance College-Ready Public Schools
Alum Rock Union Elementary School District
Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California
Aspire Public Schools
Back to the Start
Bend the Arc: Jewish Action California
Berryessa Union School District
California Adult Education Administrators Association
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California Association for Bilingual Education
California Association of Food Banks
California Charter Schools Association
California Civil Liberties Advocacy
California Community Foundation
California Council for Adult Education
California County Superintendents
California Faculty Association
California Federation of Labor Unions
California Immigrant Policy Center
California School Employees Association
California State Council of Service Employees International Union
California State PTA
California Teachers Association
California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition
Californians Together
Cambrian School District
Campbell Union High School District
Catalyst California
Center for Human Rights and Constitutional Law
Children Now
Children’s Institute
Chinese for Affirmative Action
Church State Council
City of Alameda
City of Santa Ana
City of Soledad
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
County of Alameda
County of Monterey
County of San Mateo
County of Santa Cruz
Davis College Democrats
Democrats of Rossmoor
Disability Rights California
Drug Policy Alliance
Early Edge California
EdTrust-West
El Rancho Unified School District
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Ella Baker Center for Human Rights
Equality California
First 5 California
Fremont Union High School District
Fresno Unified School District
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
Hispanas Organized for Political Equality
Jorgel Chavez, Mayor of Bell Gardens
KIPP SoCal Public Schools
Long Beach Community College District
Los Altos School District
Los Angeles County Democratic Party
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Los Angeles County School Trustee Association
Los Angeles Unified School District
Loyola Marymount University - the Center for Equity for English Learners
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Milpitas Unified School District
Morgan Hill Unified School District
Mount Pleasant Elementary School District
Mountain View Los Altos High School District
Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition
NextGen California
Northern California College Promise Coalition
Oak Grove School District
Oakland Privacy
Orchard School District
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
Partnership for Los Angeles Schools
Pomona Unified School District
Public Advocates
Public School Defenders Hub
Sacramento County Young Democrats
San Mateo County Board of Supervisors
San Mateo County Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Commission
Santa Barbara Women’s Political Committee
Santa Clara County Office of Education
Santa Clara County School Boards Association
Santa Clara Unified School District
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Santa Monica Alternative Schoolhouse PTSA
Santa Monica Democratic Club
Secure Justice
Seneca Family of Agencies
Sunnyvale School District
Teachers Association of Long Beach
The Lincoln Middle School Parent-Teachers Association
Thirty-Third District PTA
Vision y Compromiso
Western Center on Law & Poverty
5 Individuals
OPPOSITION: (Verified 5/23/25)
Click here to enter text.
Prepared by: Olgalilia Ramirez / ED. / (916) 651-4105
5/25/25 12:38:30
SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Senator Anna Caballero, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular Session
SB 48 (Gonzalez) - Immigration enforcement: schoolsites: prohibitions on access and sharing information
Version: April 23, 2025 | Policy Vote: ED. 6 - 1, JUD. 11 - 1 |
Urgency: Yes | Mandate: Yes |
Hearing Date: May 12, 2025 | Consultant: Lenin Del Castillo |
Bill Summary:
This bill, an urgency measure, prohibits a local educational agency (LEA) from granting United States immigration authorities access to a schoolsite or its pupils or consenting to searches without a valid judicial warrant or court order. The bill also specifies how an LEA shall respond to requests from immigration authorities with or without a valid judicial warrant or court order.
Fiscal Impact:
- The bill’s requirements could result in a reimbursable state mandate. These activities include the development of policies, procedures, and training for faculty and staff with responding to requests from immigration authorities. Assuming a cost of $1,000 for each LEA, the one-time Proposition 98 General Fund costs would be in the low millions of dollars statewide.
- The Attorney General could incur one-time General Fund costs, potentially in the low hundreds of thousands of dollars, to develop and publish model policies for school districts.
Background:
Existing law prohibits, except as required by state or federal law, or as required to administer a state- or federally supported educational program, school officials and employees of a school district, county office of education, or charter school, from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of students or their family members.
Existing law requires the superintendent of a school district, the superintendent of a county office of education, and the principal of a charter school, as applicable, to report to the respective governing board or body of the LEA in a timely manner any requests for information or access to a schoolsite by an officer or employee of a law enforcement agency for the purpose of enforcing the immigration laws in a manner that ensures the confidentiality and privacy of any potentially identifying information.
Existing law requires the Attorney General to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law, and ensure that public schools remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of immigration status. Existing law requires that the AG, in developing the model policies, consider specified procedures, including those related to requests for access to school grounds for purposes related to immigration enforcement and procedures for LEA employees to notify the superintendent of the school district or their designee, the superintendent of the county office of education or their designee, or the principal of the charter school or their designee, as applicable, if an individual requests or gains access to school grounds for purposes related to immigration enforcement.
Existing law requires all school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to adopt the AG’s model policies or equivalent policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement.
Proposed Law:
This bill prohibits an LEA and its personnel from doing any of the following unless there is a valid judicial warrant or court order: grant permission to access a schoolsite to an immigration authority; produce a pupil for questioning by an immigration authority at a schoolsite; or consent to a search of any kind at a schoolsite by an immigration authority. If an immigration authority presents a valid judicial warrant or court order to access a schoolsite, have a pupil produced for questioning at the schoolsite, or conduct a search of any type at the schoolsite, the LEA and its personnel shall do both of the following:
- Request from the immigration authority valid personal identification and a written statement of purposes, and retain a copy of the provided documentation.
- As early as possible, notify the designated LEA administrator of the request and advise the immigration authority that the LEA administrator is required to provide direction before access to the schoolsite or pupil may be granted.
If an immigration authority without a valid judicial warrant or court order requests access to the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite, requests a pupil be produced for questioning at a schoolsite, or demands to conduct a search of any type at a schoolsite, the LEA shall do all of the following:
- As early as possible, notify the designated LEA administrator of the request.
- Deny the immigration authority access to the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite.
- Make a reasonable effort to have the denial witnessed and documented.
This bill prohibits an LEA and its personnel from disclosing or providing in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil, pupil’s family and household, school employee, or teacher, including but not limited to, personal information as defined in state law, information about a pupil’s home, and information about a pupil’s travel schedule, to an immigration authority without a valid judicial warrant or court order directing the LEA or its personnel to do so. The bill requires that any disclosure of a pupil’s education records pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order satisfy the parent notification requirements in accordance with FERPA.
This bill states that its provisions do not prohibit or restrict any governmental entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local governmental entity, pursuant to federal immigration law as specified.
This bill requires the AG to publish model policies to assist K-12 schools in responding to immigration issues pursuant to the bill.
Related Legislation:
AB 49 (Muratsuchi, 2025) prohibits school officials and employees of an LEA or day care center from allowing an officer or employee of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enter a schoolsite or day care center for any purpose without providing valid identification, a written statement of purposes, and a valid judicial warrant. AB 49 is pending in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.
SB 98 (Pérez, 2025) requires the governing boards of local educational agencies, CSU, each California Community College District, and each Cal Grant qualifying independent institution of higher education and requests the UC Regents to issue a notification to specified individuals when the presence of immigration enforcement is confirmed on their respective campuses or schoolsites. SB 98 is pending in this Committee.
Staff Comments:
On January 20, 2025, the acting director of the US Department of Homeland Security issued a memo, effectively rescinding special protection of immigration enforcement activity in or near certain areas. The formerly protected areas included, among other areas, places where children gather such as schools, daycares, pre-schools, and other early learning programs, primary and secondary schools, college campuses as well as education-related activities.
This bill is intended to provide clear instructions to LEAs for handling situations that involve immigration enforcement activities, dictating action steps based on whether a valid judicial warrant or court order is presented. According to the author, “SB 48 would prevent school personnel from permitting immigration law enforcement officers access to a school campus without a judicial warrant. The bill will also prevent school personnel from disclosing educational records or any information about a pupil, pupil’s family and household, school employees, or teacher to an immigration law enforcement officer without a judicial warrant.”
-- END --
Senator Thomas Umberg, Chair
2025-2026 Regular Session
Bill No: SB 48 (Author:Gonzalez)
Version: April 23, 2025
Hearing Date: April 29, 2025
Fiscal: Yes
Urgency: Yes
Consultant: ID
SUBJECT
Immigration enforcement: schoolsites: prohibitions on access and sharing information
DIGEST
This bill prohibits a local educational agency from granting an immigration authority access to a schoolsite, providing a pupil for questioning, consenting to a search of the schoolsite, or disclosing student, staff, or teacher information without a valid judicial warrant, as provided.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Immigration enforcement and the risk of deportation or family separation it presents is a serious stressor for many immigrant families and students in California. Recent increased immigration enforcement and federal policy changes regarding immigration enforcement on schoolsites have further increased fears among California schools and communities that undocumented and noncitizen students or their family members will be subject to immigration enforcement actions while at school. California has enacted numerous laws to limit public schools’ assistance with immigration enforcement. SB 48 builds on these laws by prohibiting a local educational agency from granting an immigration authority access to the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite, providing a pupil for questioning, or consenting to a search of any nonpublic areas of the schoolsite without a valid judicial warrant. SB 48 would also provide specified procedures that a school or its personnel must follow for any such requests by an immigration authority. It also prohibits a local educational agency or its personnel from disclosing student, staff, or teacher information without a valid judicial warrant, as provided. SB 48 is an urgency measure that would take effect immediately if enacted. SB 48 is sponsored by the California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond and CFT – A Union of Educators and Classified Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO. It is supported by a number of nonprofits and public interest groups who support immigrants and immigrant rights. The Committee has received no timely letters of opposition. SB 48 previously passed the Senate Education Committee by a vote of six to one.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE LAW
Existing law:
- Prohibits law enforcement agencies from using agency or department moneys or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, as specified, place peace officers under the supervision of federal agencies, use immigration authorities as interpreters for law enforcement matters, transfer an individual to immigration authorities unless authorized by a judicial warrant, provide office space exclusively dedicated to immigration authorities, and contract with the federal government for the use of law enforcement agency facilities to house individuals as federal detainees for the purposes of civil immigration custody, as specified. (Gov. Code § 7284.6.)
- Requires the Attorney General, by April 1, 2018, and in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, public libraries, health facilities operated by the state or a political subdivision thereof, courthouses, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement facilities, the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the Division of Workers Compensation, and shelters, to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law, and ensuring that public schools remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of immigration status.
- Requires all public schools, health facilities operated by the state or a political division thereof, and courthouses to implement the Attorney General’s model policy, or an equivalent.
- Encourages the Agricultural Labor Relations Board, the Division of Workers’ Compensation, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, shelters, libraries, and all other organizations and entities that provide services related to physical or mental health and wellness, education, or access to justice, including the University of California, to adopt the model policy. (Gov. Code § 7284.8.)
- Defines, for the purposes of the California Values Act, including (2), above, “public schools” to include all elementary and secondary schools under the jurisdiction of local governing boards or a charter school board, the California State University, and California Community Colleges. (Gov. Code § 7284.4(j).)
- Prohibits, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state or federally-supported educational program, school officials and employees of a school district, county office of education, or charter school from collecting information or documents regarding the citizenship or immigration status of a student or their family members. (Edu. Code § 234.7(a).)
- Requires the superintendent of a school district and county office of education, and the principal of a charter school, to report to their respective governing board or body in a timely manner and in a manner that ensures the confidentiality and privacy of any potentially identifying information, any requests for information or access to a schoolsite by an officer or employee of a law enforcement agency for the purpose of enforcing immigration law. (Edu. Code § 234.7(b).)
- Requires the governing board or body of a local educational agency to:
- provide information to parents and guardians regarding their children’s right to a free public education, regardless of immigration status or religious beliefs, including information relating to “know your rights” regarding immigration enforcement established by the Attorney General; and
- educate students about the negative impact of bullying other students based on their actual or perceived immigration status or religious beliefs and customs. (Edu. Code § 234.7(d).)
- Requires the Attorney General, by April 1, 2018, and in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law, and ensuring that public schools remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of immigration status. Requires the Attorney General to consider, at a minimum, all of the following in developing the model policies:
- procedures related to requests for access to school grounds for purposes related to immigration enforcement;
- procedures for local educational agency employees to notify specified officers of the governing board or body of public or charter schools if an individual requests or gains access to school grounds for purposes related to immigration enforcement; and
- procedures for responding to requests for personal information about students or their family members for purposes of immigration enforcement. (Edu. Code § 234.7(f).)
- Requires local educational agencies to adopt the model policies developed by the Attorney General pursuant to (7), above, by July 1, 2018. (Edu. Code § 234.7(g).)
This bill:
- Makes specified findings and declarations relating to immigration and immigration enforcement at or near California’s schools.
- Prohibits a local educational agency and its personnel from doing any of the following, to the extent possible, unless pursuant to a valid judicial warrant:
- grant permission to access the nonpublic areas of a schoolsite to an immigration authority;
- produce a pupil for questioning by an immigration authority at a schoolsite; and
- consent to a search of any kind of the nonpublic areas at a schoolsite by an immigration authority.
- Requires a local educational agency and its personnel, if an immigration authority presents a valid judicial warrant or court order to access a nonpublic area of a schoolsite, have a pupil be produced for questioning at a schoolsite, or conduct a search of any kind of a nonpublic area at the schoolsite, to do the following:
- request from the immigration authority valid personal identification and a written statement of purposes, and retain a copy of the provided documentation;
- notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request as soon as possible, and advise the immigration authority that the local educational agency administrator is required to provide direction before access may be granted; and
- if an immigration authority requests access to a nonpublic area of the schoolsite, that a pupil be produced for questioning at the schoolsite, or to conduct a search of a nonpublic area of the schoolsite without a warrant, that the local educational agency and its personnel:
- notify the designated local educational agency administrator of the request;
- deny the immigration authority access to the nonpublic area of the schoolsite; and
- make a reasonable effort to have the denial witnessed and documented.
- Prohibits a local educational agency and its personnel from disclosing or providing in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil, the pupil’s family or household, a school employee, or a teacher, as specified, to an immigration authority without a valid judicial warrant or court order directing the agency or its personnel to do so. Specifies that any disclosure of a pupil’s education records pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order must satisfy the parent notification requirements of the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA).
- Specifies that its provisions do not prohibit or restrict any governmental entity or official from sending to or receiving from federal immigration authorities immigration status information of any individual, or from maintaining or exchanging that information with any federal, state, or local governmental entity pursuant to specified federal statutes.
- Requires the Attorney General to publish model policies to assist K-12 schools in responding to immigration issues pursuant to this bill.
- Defines, for the purposes of its provisions, the following:
- “Immigration authority” to mean any federal, state, or local officer, employee, or person performing immigration enforcement functions;
- “Immigration authority” to include any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person’s presence in, entry, or re-entry to, or employment in, the United States.
- “local educational agency” to mean a school district, county office of education, or a charter school.
- Specifies that it is an urgency statute to take effect immediately, and specifies the facts constituting this necessity are:
- To ensure that schools continue to provide children and their families guaranteed access to school campuses without contributing to fear of deportation, harassment, or intimidation by immigration authorities, and to retain critically needed attendance-based funding.
COMMENTS
- Author’s statement
According to the author:
All children, regardless of immigration status, have the constitutional right to a free education. With each day that passes, the federal government’s efforts to target immigrant communities further jeopardize California’s ability to uphold that constitutional right.
Raids and threats of deportation across our state have ignited fear and anxiety among families. Parents are scared to send their children to school, and children themselves are fearful that they will return home after the school day to never to see their loved ones again. These actions have alarming impacts on student learning, mental health, well-being, and attendance—which in turn impacts school funding and the quality of education students receive. Our schools must not be a battleground for immigration enforcement. Senate Bill 48 sends a clear message: California is committed to protecting our students and their families.
Specifically, SB 48 would prevent school personnel from permitting immigration law enforcement officers access to a school campus without a judicial warrant. The bill will also prevent school personnel from disclosing educational records or any information about a pupil, pupil’s family and household, school employees, or teacher to an immigration law enforcement officer without a judicial warrant.
Schools shape the next generation of leaders and must continue to be a safe, nurturing environment for students to learn and grow together—without disruption and without living in fear that their families will be torn apart.
- California’s undocumented and non-citizen students are essential members of their communities and California’s schools
California is home to about 10.6 million immigrants, accounting for 22% of the foreign-born population nationwide.[1] In 2023, 27% of the state’s population was foreign born, the highest of any state. Of California’s immigrant population, about 45% are non-citizens, and about 1.8 million are undocumented. There are an estimated 133,000 undocumented children in California public K-12 schools, and one in five California children live in a mixed-status household where at least one member is not a U.S. Citizen.[2] Some undocumented individuals have Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program created by President Obama in 2012 that provides temporary protection from deportation and the opportunity for employment authorization to certain undocumented youth who entered the United States as children and have, or are, completing some amount of school. 6,784 DACA recipients work in education in the state.[3] Undocumented and non-citizen Californians are important members of their communities. Many attend California schools or are studying to enter fields greatly impacted by worker shortages, work in essential services, and play vital roles in their towns and cities. Undocumented Californians also contribute millions to the California economy and in taxes every year. They help make California a thriving, diverse, and healthy state.
The term “undocumented” generally refers to a person who is in the United States without immigration status from the federal government. Many undocumented Californians arrived to the United States when they were young, and have long been a part of their communities. About 76% of undocumented students arrived in the United States when they were children or adolescents, and those who arrived to the United States as adults have lived in the United States for eight years on average.[4] Lacking immigration status can be incredibly limiting; without immigration status, individuals are usually ineligible for federal public benefits and federal student loans, and may become subject to a deportation proceeding by federal immigration authorities at any time. In addition, undocumented persons are generally not authorized to work in the United States.
An undocumented person may have entered the United States without any visa or immigration status, or they may have entered with an immigration status that has since expired. A person with a visa that is expiring is generally expected to renew or apply to adjust their status to a new category of immigration status, or depart the United States. However, many visas are only designed to be temporary, and eligibility for and availability of permanent immigration status – called lawful permanent residency, or a green card – is incredibly limited. Even those who qualify for a green card may have to wait a decade or even more than two decades to be able to receive it due to backlogs and administrative delays. Without comprehensive immigration reform from Congress, the United States’ immigration system continues to be broken and fails to provide meaningful opportunities for undocumented individuals and those who wish to stay in the United States to do so with immigration status.
- Non-citizen Californians hold a variety of immigration statuses
In addition to undocumented individuals and DACA recipients, many other individuals with immigration status or visas call California’s public schools home for education or for work. Some are international students, who are in the United States on student visas that have strict requirements regarding their education and employment, or unaccompanied minors with Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS) due to abandonment, abuse, or neglect by one or both of their parents. In addition, others are recipients of immigration statuses like u-nonimmigrant status, t-nonimmigrant status, or asylum, which all provide temporary status and the ability to apply for lawful permanent residency. Others have lawful permanent residency, and simply have not obtained U.S. Citizenship yet or do not qualify for citizenship. In addition to these categories of immigration status, various other categories of status exist that are tied to the visa holder’s employment, or are temporary visas for specific purposes like tourism.
- Immigration enforcement poses significant risk of harm to undocumented and non-citizen students in California
Any person in the United States who is not a citizen has some level of risk that they could be deported from the United States. In order to be deported from the United States, an individual needs to be found to have triggered a ground of deportability. There are numerous grounds of deportability, such as making a false claim to U.S. Citizenship or being convicted of certain criminal offenses.[5] An individual who is present in the United States without ever having been admitted or paroled into the United States by an immigration officer is deportable, as is an individual who has violated their immigration status or has had their immigration status expire. Thus, an undocumented person is always at risk of being subject to immigration enforcement activities by the federal government. However, many undocumented individuals reside in the United States for many years or without ever being subject to immigration enforcement, in part because the federal government’s capacity for enforcing immigration laws is limited.
If an individual is apprehended by an official for immigration enforcement purposes, and the officer believes the individual is undocumented or has done something to trigger a ground of deportability, they may be placed into a deportation proceeding before an immigration judge. Deportation proceedings are informal, administrative proceedings, in which an administrative law judge makes a determination of whether a non-citizen before the judge should be granted relief from deportation and some type of immigration status, such as asylee status, or be deported. While such proceedings often take years to resolve, the result of either failing to appear at such a proceeding or failing to defend against the government’s charges of deportability is that the individual is ordered removed from the United States. So serious are the consequences of deportation proceedings that one immigration judge has called deportation proceedings “death penalty cases heard in traffic court.”[6] If an individual has an outstanding removal order, they may be detained and removed at any time, except in narrow circumstances.
In addition, under a process called expedited removal, if an immigration officer stops an individual who cannot provide documentation proving that they have legal status to reside in the United States and that they have been in the United States for a certain period of time, they may be removed through an expedited process without the ability to defend against their deportation before an immigration judge.[7] Under President Trump’s first term, and again under his second term, expedited removal was expanded to be available throughout the entire United States, and to require that a detained individual must be able to prove that they have been in the United States for at least the past two years. When an individual is stopped by an immigration officer and placed in either expedited removal or a removal proceeding, they may be detained in immigration detention, sometimes indefinitely while awaiting their case or deportation.
- Increased immigration enforcement activity has significant impacts on those targeted by such enforcement and their families
President Trump, since re-entering the office, has promised to ramp up immigration enforcement and greatly increase deportations. Already, he has attempted to make due on this promise, through various executive actions that have declared a national emergency at the southern border, halted refugee admission, expanded who immigration enforcement officers can prioritize for deportation, expanded expedited removal, increased the hiring of immigration officers, and expanded immigration detention. In addition, the Trump Administration ended long-standing federal policy that limited immigration enforcement activity at “sensitive locations” like schools, places of worship, courthouses, and healthcare facilities.[8] Although reports of immigration enforcement actions taking place at schools have been limited, they have occurred. A charter school in Chicago, Illinois, for example, recently reported the detention of a father while the father was dropping his children off at school.[9]
The consequences of the threat of immigration enforcement activity and these recent changes in policy regarding such activity is significant. Schools across the country are experiencing significant drops in school attendance as students and their families fear being stopped or questioned by immigration authorities at school.[10] In addition, research has shown that many immigrant youth experience high levels of mental health symptoms like anxiety, depression, and post-traumatic stress due to fears of immigration enforcement and separation from their family due to immigration enforcement.[11] Stressors related to immigration status and the risk of deportation negatively impact all aspects of an undocumented or non-citizen individual’s life, including their education. In addition, a deportation can severely impact the individual deported, sending them to a country in which they have not lived for many years or where they fear for their life, and separating them from their families. Family members of those subject to immigration enforcement often suffer as well, through the psychological pain of family separation as well as through financial strain and other hardships as a result.
- Recent California laws aim to limit the use of state resources for immigration enforcement activity
Given recent developments in federal immigration policy in the last eight years and the risks that California’s undocumented and noncitizen students face relating to immigration enforcement activity, the Legislature has passed various laws aimed at protecting the state’s undocumented and noncitizen students and minimizing the disruption that immigration enforcement activities can have at the state’s educational institutions. In 2017, the Legislature passed AB 699 (O’Donnell, Ch. 493, Stats. 2017) to ensure that all students in California public schools have equal access to education regardless of their immigration status. AB 699 also prohibited a school from collecting information or documents regarding a pupil or their family members’ immigration status and required school officials to report to their governing bodies any requests for information or access to the schoolsite for the purpose of immigration enforcement. In addition, AB 699 required that, by April 2018, the Attorney General issue and publish model policies for public schools regarding limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at schools. AB 699 required all local educational agencies to adopt the Attorney General’s model policies or an equivalent. The Attorney General issued its guidance and model policies in 2018, though they were updated in December 2024. The model policies for K-12 schools include that: personnel should not inquire specifically about a student or their parent or guardian’s citizenship or immigration status; local educational agencies avoid disclosing information that might indicate a student or their family’s immigration status; schools should prohibit access to school grounds during school hours for all outsiders who have not registered; entry to the schoolsite by immigration enforcement officers is reported to on-site police and administrators; any request for access to a school by an immigration officer, including of specific information requested from the officer, be reported to an administrator; and school personnel generally do not consent to an immigration officer’s access to the school without a valid warrant or a claim of exigent circumstances.[12]
The same year that the Legislature passed AB 699, it also passed two other immigration-related bills: AB 450 (Chiu, Ch. 492, Stats. 2017) and SB 54 (De León, Ch. 495, Stats. 2017). AB 450 prohibited an employer from providing voluntary consent to an immigration officer to enter a non-public area of the workplace without being provided a judicial warrant, and placed a similar prohibition on providing immigration officers access to the employer’s employee records. SB 54 prohibited law enforcement agencies from using their resources for immigration enforcement or from cooperating in immigration enforcement activities. In addition, SB 54 also required the Attorney General to publish various model policies regarding local entities’ involvement or cooperation with immigration enforcement.
- SB 48 aims to limit immigration enforcement activities at California schools
SB 48 aims to build on these laws. Specifically, it prohibits a local educational agency and its personnel from granting permission to access a nonpublic area of a schoolsite to an immigration authority, producing a student for questioning by an immigration authority, or consenting to a search of a nonpublic area of the schoolsite by an immigration authority, unless the immigration authority has a valid judicial warrant. SB 48 would specify that, if the immigration authority does have a valid warrant, the agency or its personnel must request valid identification from the officer and a written statement of purpose, and must notify a designated administrator of the request as soon as possible. If an immigration officer does not have a valid judicial warrant, SB 48 requires the school or its personnel to deny access to the immigration officer, document the denial, and notify the designated administrator.
In addition to these requirements regarding an immigration authority’s request for access to a schoolsite, SB 48 creates a similar prohibition on the disclosure or providing of the educational records of or any information about a student, the student’s family or household, a school employee, or a teacher. If an immigration authority requests such information pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order, SB 48 specifies that the disclosure must satisfy the parent notification requirements of FERPA. This means that the school must make reasonable efforts to notify the parent or certain eligible students of the judicial warrant or court order in advance of the school’s compliance, so that the parent or student can seek protective action. (See 34 C.F.R. 99.31(a)(9)(ii).) SB 48 specifies that it is an urgency clause to take immediate effect upon enactment, which is necessary to ensure that schools continue to provide children and their families guaranteed access to school campuses without contributing to fear of deportation, harassment, or intimidation by immigration authorities, and to retain critically needed attendance-based funding.
- Arguments in support
According to the California Superintendent of Public Instruction, who is a sponsor of SB 48:
This bill prohibits local educational agencies (LEAs) from granting immigration authorities access to school sites or to students for the purpose of searching or questioning without a valid judicial warrant. The bill requires LEAs to follow a specified process in these instances and mandates that the Attorney General public model policies for LEAs to respond to immigration enforcement actions.
Nearly 11 million immigrants call California home. One in five California children live in mixed-status families, in which at least one parent is undocumented. Every student, no matter their immigration status or their family’s status, has the right to an education. This right to education is a fundamental guarantee protected by law, ensuring that every individual, regardless of background or status, has access to learning opportunities and the resources needed to succeed. Our immigrant communities in California are under attack, an many are fearful about sending their children to school. The rising fears of deportation among families creates a chilling effect on educational activities, leading to lower school attendance and reduced funding that supports all students.
SB 48 strengthens California’s ability to ensure safe, supportive learning environments by prohibiting LEAs and staff from allowing immigration authorities on school sites or sharing student, family, or staff information without a judicial warrant. This significant legislation builds guardrails to guarantee all students and families can safely enter school environments without the crippling fear of immigration enforcement actions.
SUPPORT
California Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond (sponsor)
CFT- a Union of Educators & Classified Professionals, AFT, AFL-CIO (sponsor)
Alameda County Office of Education
Alliance College-ready Public Schools
Aspire Public Schools
Bend the Arc: Jewish Action California
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California Association for Bilingual Education (CABE)
California Association of Food Banks
California Community Foundation
California County Superintendents
California Faculty Association
California Federation of Labor Unions, AFL-CIO
California Immigrant Policy Center
California School Employees Association
California State Council of Service Employees International Union (SEIU California)
California Teachers Association
California Undocumented Higher Education Coalition
Children Now
County of Alameda
County of Monterey
Davis College Democrats
Disability Rights California
Early Edge California
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Fresno Unified School District
Hispanas Organized for Political Equality
Long Beach Community College District
Los Angeles County Office of Education
Nextgen California
Northern California College Promise Coalition
Public Advocates
San Mateo; County of
Santa Monica Democratic Club
Seneca Family of Agencies
Soledad; City of
Teachers Association of Long Beach
The Education Trust - West
Western Center on Law & Poverty
OPPOSITION
None received
RELATED LEGISLATION
Pending Legislation:
SB 98 (Cervantes, 2025) requires the governing bodies of local educational agencies and California State Universities, community colleges, and specified independent institutions of higher education, and requests the Regents of the University of California, to notify students or their parents and guardians, teachers, and other specified school community members when immigration enforcement activity is confirmed on the schoolsite or campus. SB 98 is currently pending before the Senate Appropriations Committee.
AB 419 (Connolly, 2025) requires the governing board or body of a local educational agency to post the “Know Your Educational Rights” guide developed by the Attorney General in the administrative buildings and on the website of the local educational agency and at each of its schoolsites, including in each language other than English that the school is required to translate documents into pursuant to existing law. AB 419 is currently pending before the Assembly Education Committee.
AB 49 (Muratsuchi, 2025) prohibits school officials and employees of a local educational agency, or employees of a day care facility, from allowing a federal immigration officer to enter a schoolsite or day care facility for any purpose without providing valid identification, a written statement of purpose, and a valid judicial warrant, and without receiving approval from specified school officials, and limits an approved official’s access to only facilities where students or children are not present. AB 49 is currently pending before the Assembly Education Committee.
Prior Legislation:
SB 959 (Hurtado, 2020) would have defined “pupil,” for the purposes of existing law that provides what school officials and employees of a school district cannot do with information related to the citizenship or immigration status of a pupil or their family members, and related provisions, to mean a child enrolled in a childcare or development program, transitional kindergarten, kindergarten, or the first through twelfth grades. SB 959 died in the Senate Education Committee due to COVID-19 related bill limits.
SB 54 (De León, Ch. 495, Stats. 2017) prohibited state and local law enforcement agencies from using money or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes, subject to exception, and required the issuance and adoption by various entities of model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement and limiting the availability of information for immigration enforcement.
AB 699 (O’Donnell, Ch. 493, Stats. 2017) included immigration status in the list of specified characteristics for which law states it is the policy of the State of California to provide equal rights and opportunities in the state’s educational institutions, and prohibited school officials and employees of a school district, county office of education, or charter school from collecting information or documents regarding the citizenship or immigration status of pupils or their family members. Required specified school officials to take certain actions in response to requests for information or access to a schoolsite by an immigration officer for the purposes of immigration enforcement, required the Attorney General to publish, by April 1, 2018, model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, and required all local educational agencies to adopt these model policies or equivalent policies.
AB 450 (Chiu, Ch. 492, Stats. 2017) prohibited an employer from providing voluntary consent to an immigration officer to enter a non-public area of the workplace without being provided a judicial warrant. AB 450 also prohibited an employer from providing immigration officers voluntary consent to access, review, or obtain an employer’s employee records without a subpoena or judicial warrant, except for in the context of a valid request to review I-9 employment eligibility verification forms and related records.
PRIOR VOTES:
Senate Education Committee (Ayes 6, Noes 1)
**************
Marisol Cuellar Mejia et al., Fact Sheet: Immigrants in California, Public Policy Institute of California (Jan. 2025), available at https://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in-california/. ↑
Mirgant Policy Institute, “Profile of the unauthorized population: California” (accessed Apr. 13, 2025), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/data/unauthorized-immigrant-population/state/CA#; Office of Digital Services, “Immigration and California families,” Ca.gov (accessed Apr. 13, 2025), https://www.ca.gov/immigration/. ↑
Id. ↑
American Immigration Council and Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, “Undocumented Students in U.S. Higher Education” (Jun. 2024), available at https://www.higheredimmigrationportal.org/research/undocumented-students-in-higher-education-updated-march-2021/ (hereafter American Immigration Council). ↑
See 8 U.S.C. § 1227. ↑
Dana Leigh Marks, “Immigration judge: death penalty cases in a traffic court setting,” CNN (Jun. 26, 2014), https://www.cnn.com/2014/06/26/opinion/immigration-judge-broken-system/index.html. ↑
8 U.S.C. § 1225(b). ↑
See Benjamine C. Huffman, Memorandum: Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas, Dept. of Homeland Sec. (Jan. 20, 2025), available at https://www.nafsa.org/regulatory-information/dhs-rescinds-biden-protected-areas-enforcement-policy; James A. Puleo, Memorandum: Enforcement Activities at Schools, Places of Worship, or at funerals or other religious ceremonies, Imm. & Nationality Svcs., HQ 807-P (May 17, 1993); Dept. of Homeland Sec., “Secretary Mayorkas Issues New Guidance for Enforcement Action at Protected Areas,” (Oct. 27, 2021), available at https://www.dhs.gov/archive/news/2021/10/27/secretary-mayorkas-issues-new-guidance-enforcement-action-protected-areas. ↑
Matt Masterson, “Immigration agents detain man outside Chicago charter school, officials say,” WTTW (Feb. 27, 2025), https://news.wttw.com/2025/02/27/immigration-agents-detain-man-outside-chicago-charter-school-officials-say. ↑
Jasmine Garsd, “The prospect of immigration agents entering schools is sending shockwaves among communities,” NPR (Feb. 4, 2025), https://www.npr.org/2025/02/04/nx-s1-5277170/schools-ice-immigration. ↑
Randy Capps & Michael Fox, “How the fear of immigration enforcement affects the mental health of latino youth,” Migration Policy Institute (Dec. 2020), https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/how-fear-immigration-enforcement-affects-mental-health-latino-youth. ↑
California Attorney General, Promoting a Safe and Secure Learning Environment for All: guidance and model policies to assist California’s K-12 schools in responding to immigration issues, Cal. Dept. of Just. (Dec. 2024), available at https://oag.ca.gov/news/press-releases/attorney-general-bonta-issues-guidance-educational-rights-immigrant-students-and. ↑
SENATE COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION
Senator Sasha Renée Pérez, Chair
2025 - 2026 Regular
Bill No: SB 48 Hearing Date: April 2, 2025
Author: | |||
Version: | March 24, 2025 | ||
Urgency: | Yes | Fiscal: | Yes |
Consultant: | Olgalilia Ramirez | ||
Subject: Immigration enforcement: schoolsites: prohibitions on access and sharing information.
NOTE: This bill has been referred to the Committees on Education and Public Safety. A “do pass” motion should include referral to the Committee on Public Safety.
SUMMARY
This bill, an urgency measure, prohibits a Local Educational Agency (LEA) and its personnel from granting United States (US) immigration authorities access to a schoolsite or its pupils or consenting to searches without a valid judicial warrant or court order. It further dictates how a LEA responds to requests from immigration authorities with or without a valid judicial warrant or court order. Lastly, this bill prohibits a LEA from disclosing any information about a student, their family and household, school employees, or teachers to immigration authorities without a valid judicial warrant or court order.
BACKGROUND
Existing law:
- Prohibits, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state- or federally supported educational program, school officials and employees of a school district, county office of education, or charter school from collecting information or documents regarding citizenship or immigration status of students or their family members. (Education Code (EC) § 234.7 et seq.)
- Requires the Attorney General (AG), by April 1, 2018, in consultation with the appropriate stakeholders, to publish model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law, and ensure that public schools remain safe and accessible to all California residents, regardless of immigration status. Existing law requires that the AG in developing the model policies consider all of the following:
- Procedures related to requests for access to school grounds for purposes related to immigration enforcement.
- Procedures for LEA employees to notify the superintendent of the school district or their designee, the superintendent of the county office of education or their designee, or the principal of the charter school or their designee, as applicable, if an individual requests or gains access to school grounds for purposes related to immigration enforcement.
- Procedures for responding to requests for personal information about students or their family members for purposes of immigration enforcement. (EC § 234.7 (f)(1)(A-C inclusive))
- Requires all school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to adopt the AG’s model policies or equivalent policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement. (EC § 234.7 (g) and Government Code § 7284.8 (a))
- Under the California Values Act, generally prohibits California law enforcement agencies from investigating, interrogating, detaining, detecting, or arresting persons for immigration enforcement purposes. It further provides certain limited exceptions to this prohibition, including transfers of persons pursuant to a judicial warrant and providing certain information to federal authorities regarding serious and violent felons in custody. (Government Code § 7284 -7284.21, inclusive)
- Prohibits a school district from permitting access to pupil records to a person without parental consent or under judicial order, with some exceptions:
- School districts are required to permit access to records relevant to the legitimate educational interests of specified requesters, including:
- School officials and employees of the districts, members of a school attendance review board and any volunteer aide (as specified), provided that the person has a legitimate educational interest to inspect a record.
- Officials and employees of other public schools or school systems where the pupil intends to or is directed to enroll.
- Other federal, state and local officials as specified.
- Parents of a pupil 18 years of age or older who is a dependent.
- A pupil 16 years of age or older or having completed the 10th grade who requests access.
- A district attorney, judge or probation officer, in relation to truancy proceedings.
- A district attorney’s office for consideration against a parent for failure to comply with compulsory education laws.
- A probation officer, district attorney, or counsel of record for a minor, in relation to a criminal investigation or in regard to declaring a person a ward of the court or involving a violation of a condition of probation.
- A county placing agency when acting as an authorized representative of a state or LEA. (EC § 49076)
- School officials and employees of the districts, members of a school attendance review board and any volunteer aide (as specified), provided that the person has a legitimate educational interest to inspect a record.
- School districts are required to permit access to records relevant to the legitimate educational interests of specified requesters, including:
- School districts are authorized to release information from pupil records to the following:
- Appropriate persons in connection with an emergency if the information is necessary to protect the health or safety of a pupil or other person.
- Agencies or organizations in connection with the application of a pupil for, or receipt of, financial aid.
- The county elections official for the identification of pupils who are eligible to register to vote.
- Accrediting associations in order to carry out accrediting functions.
- Organizations conducting studies on behalf of educational agencies or institutions for the purpose of developing, validating or administering predictive tests, administering student aid programs, and improving instruction.
- Officials and employees of private schools or school systems where the pupil is enrolled or intends to enroll.
- A contractor or consultant with a legitimate educational interest who has a formal written agreement or contract with the school district regarding the provision of outsourced institutional services or functions by the contractor or consultant. (EC § 49076)
- Appropriate persons in connection with an emergency if the information is necessary to protect the health or safety of a pupil or other person.
- Requires school districts to notify parents in writing of their rights, including the types of pupil records kept by the district, the position of the official responsible for the records, the policies for reviewing and expunging records, and the criteria used by the district to define “school officials and employees” and to determine “legitimate educational interest.” (EC § 49063)
- Under the Information Practices Act defines personal information to mean any information that is maintained by an agency that identifies or describes an individual, including, but not limited to, the individual’s name, social security number, physical description, home address, home telephone number, education, financial matters, and medical or employment history. It includes statements made by, or attributed to, the individual. (Civil Code § 1798.9)
- Existing federal law, the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) prohibits federal funds from being provided to any educational agency or institution which has a policy or practice of permitting the release of a pupil’s educational records to any individual, agency, or organization without the written consent of the pupil’s parents. FERPA exempts from the general parental consent requirement certain kinds of disclosures, including disclosures to state and local officials for the purposes of conducting truancy proceedings, a criminal investigation, auditing or evaluating an educational program, or in relation to the application for financial aid. (United States Code, Title 20, Section 1232g and Code of Federal Regulations, Title 34, Sections 99.31)
ANALYSIS
This bill:
- Prohibits a LEA and its personnel from doing any of the following unless pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order:
- Grant permission to access a schoolsite to an immigration authority.
- Produce a pupil for questioning by an immigration authority at a
schoolsite.
- Consent to a search of any kind at a schoolsite by an immigration
authority.
- When immigration authority, with a valid judicial warrant or court order to access a schoolsite, have a pupil produced for questioning at the schoolsite or conduct a search of any type at the schoolsite, requires the responding LEA and its personnel to do both of the following:
- Request from the immigration authority valid personal identification and a
written statement of purposes, and retain a copy of the provided documentation.
- As early as possible, notify the designated LEA administrator of the
request and advise the immigration authority that the LEA administrator is required to provide direction before access to the schoolsite or pupil may be granted.
- When immigration authority, without a valid judicial warrant or court order, requests access to a schoolsite, requests a pupil be produced for questioning at a schoolsite, or demands to conduct a search of any type at a schoolsite, requires the responding LEA to do all of the following:
- As early as possible, notify the designated LEA administrator of the
request.
- Deny the immigration authority access to the schoolsite.
- Make a reasonable effort to have the denial witnessed and documented.
- Prohibits an LEA and its personnel from disclosing or providing in writing, verbally, or in any other manner, the education records of or any information about a pupil, pupil’s family and household, school employee, or teacher, including but not limited to, personal information as defined in state law, information about a pupil’s home, and information about a pupil’s travel schedule, to an immigration authority without a valid judicial warrant or court order directing the LEA or its personnel to do so. The bill requires that any disclosure of a pupil’s education records pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order satisfy the parent notification requirements in accordance with FERPA.
- States that the bill’s provisions do not prohibit or restrict any governmental entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, federal immigration authorities information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual, or from requesting from federal immigration authorities immigration status information, lawful or unlawful, of any individual, or maintaining or exchanging that information with any other federal, state, or local governmental entity, pursuant to federal immigration law as specified.
- Requires the AG to publish model policies to assist K-12 schools in responding to immigration issues pursuant to the bill.
- Defines all of the following terms for purposes of this bill:
- Immigration authority to mean any federal, state, or local officer,
employee, or person performing immigration enforcement functions.
- Local educational agency to mean a school district, county office of
education, or charter school.
- Schoolsite to mean an individual school campus of a school district,
county office of education, or charter school, an area where a local educational agency’s school-sponsored activity is currently being held, or a schoolbus or other transportation provided by a local educational agency.
- Includes an urgency clause, based on the need to ensure that schools continue to provide children and their families guaranteed access to school campuses without contributing to fear of deportation, harassment, or intimidation by immigration authorities and to retain critically needed attendance-based funding, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
- Makes a number of related findings and declarations about the fear of deportation and its effect on children, their school attendance and learning.
- Expresses the intent of the Legislature to:
- Keep California’s educational resources and personnel focused on
providing a stable and secure learning environment to which our pupils have a right regardless of their immigration status.
- Protect needed school revenue that will be diminished as a result of
immigration enforcement threats on or near school campuses. These deportation threats cause families, including families of citizens of the US, to be afraid to send their pupils to school, thereby reducing school revenue and preventing pupils of all backgrounds from obtaining a quality education.
- Assure California families that our schools are not in the business of
immigration enforcement and that educational personnel can remain focused on providing quality education to pupils. Pupils’ safety, well-being, and access to education are paramount. It is also critical to preserve school funding in the face of declining enrollment and other factors that reduce school revenue. By limiting interruptions in instructional time and fostering an environment where pupils feel safe learning, California will protect pupils, families, and school employees and preserve schools’ attendance-based revenue.
STAFF COMMENTS
- Need for the bill. According to the author, “All children, regardless of immigration status, have the constitutional right to a free education. With each day that passes, the federal government’s efforts to target immigrant communities further jeopardize California’s ability to uphold that constitutional right.
“Raids and threats of deportation across our state have ignited fear and anxiety among families. Parents are scared to send their children to school, and children themselves are fearful that they will return home after the school day to never to see their loved ones again. These actions have alarming impacts on student learning, mental health, well-being, and attendance—which in turn impacts school funding and the quality of education students receive. Our schools must not be a battleground for immigration enforcement. Senate Bill 48 sends a clear message: California is committed to protecting our students and their families.
“Specifically, SB 48 would prevent school personnel from permitting immigration law enforcement officers access to a school campus without a judicial warrant. The bill will also prevent school personnel from disclosing educational records or any information about a pupil, pupil’s family and household, school employees, or teacher to an immigration law enforcement officer without a judicial warrant.
“Schools shape the next generation of leaders and must continue to be a safe, nurturing environment for students to learn and grow together—without disruption and without living in fear that their families will be torn apart.”
- AG model policies instruct schools how to respond to immigration enforcement activity. AB 699 (O’Donnell and Chiu, Chapter 493, Statutes of 2017) required the California AG to issue and publish model policies by April 2018 that limit assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, thereby ensuring that public schools remain safe and accessible to all California residents regardless of their immigration status. It further mandated that all LEAs adopt these model policies or equivalent policies by July 2018. The AG’s guidance and model policies were initially issued in 2018 and subsequently updated in December 2024. Recent concerns and news regarding potential mass arrests, detention, and deportations under the Trump administration prompted the update. The updated policies provide LEAs with guidance on managing and responding to various situations, including instances when immigration officials request to access school grounds for enforcement purposes. The model policies also instruct LEAs on how to identify categories of student information not subject to release and ways to protect student information from unauthorized disclosure of their information. The AG’s updated guidance is a detailed document that outlines each model policy for adoption, presents background information on governing law, outlines appropriate actions for various circumstances, and includes practical examples to assist schools in understanding and protecting the rights of students and their families. This bill attempts to further prescribe how LEAs manage interactions with immigration authorities and requests for information from immigration authorities. It also seeks to ensure consistency with AG model policy and the bill’s provisions by requiring the AG to publish model policies to assist K-12 in responding to immigration issues specified in this bill.
- Enforcement actions in or near protected areas. On January 20, 2025, the acting director of the US Department of Homeland Security issued a memo, effectively rescinding special protection of immigration enforcement activity in or near certain areas. The formerly protected areas included, among other areas, places where children gather, such as schools, daycares, pre-schools, and other early learning programs, primary and secondary schools, college campuses as well as education-related activities. This news raised concerns by state lawmakers regarding the safety of students in educational settings. This bill aims to provide clear instructions to LEAs for handling situations that involve immigration enforcement activities, dictating action steps based on whether a valid judicial warrant or court order is presented.
- Student’s right to education. According to the AG’s “Guidance and Model Policies to Assist California’s K-12 Schools in Responding to Immigration Issues,” although California cannot control the actions of federal immigration-enforcement agencies, federal and California laws empower schools to welcome all students and to reassure them of their educational rights and opportunities. Under the US Constitution, all students have a right to receive an education without discrimination based on immigration status. In Plyler v. Doe, the US Supreme Court recognized that undocumented immigrants are guaranteed due process and equal protection rights under the US Constitution and that children cannot be denied equal access to a public education on the basis of their immigration status. Therefore, schools must provide free public education to all students, regardless of their immigration status and regardless of the citizenship status of the students’ parents or guardians. Similarly, California law affirms the equal educational rights of immigrant students. Under the California Constitution, all students and staff regardless of immigration status have the inalienable right to attend campuses, which are safe, secure, and peaceful. State statute further prohibits discrimination based on a student’s immigration status.
The Migration Policy Institution estimates that 133,000 undocumented children between the ages of 3 and 17 years are enrolled in California public schools, and 750,000 K-12 students have an undocumented parent. In addition to upholding their right to education, the state has demonstrated a willingness to invest in their college education through creating pathways to qualify for state aid programs and resident tuition as Californians in public postsecondary institutions.
- Student information and privacy. Under current state law, a school district, county office of education, or charter school is prohibited from collecting or soliciting social security number information from students or their parents unless otherwise required by state or federal law. It directly prohibits school officials and employees from collecting information or documents about the immigration or citizenship status of students or their family members. Educational institutions are also subject to federal and state privacy laws that limit the type of information they may disclose. As noted in the background section of this analysis, federal statute under FERPA mandates that educational institutions must not disclose education records or personally identifiable information unless under limited circumstances. It provides certain rights for parents regarding their children’s educational records. Under FERPA, a school generally may not disclose personal information from a student’s education records to a third party unless the student’s parent has provided prior written consent. However, there are a few exceptions (see the background section of this analysis). As it relates to information sharing, this bill prohibits LEAs and its staff from sharing with immigration authorities a student’s education records or any other information about the student. This includes personal information about the student’s home, their travel plans, and their family. Consistent with FERPA rules, the LEA and its staff must have a valid court order or warrant to do so. Any release of a student’s education records that is allowed by a valid court warrant or order would have to meet the parent notification standards so that a parent may seek protective action as outlined in FERPA. This bill additionally prohibits information sharing as specified about a school employee or a teacher.
- Related legislation.
AB 49 (Muratsuchi, 2025) prohibits, except as required by state or federal law or as required to administer a state- or federally supported educational program or childcare program, school officials and employees of a school district, county office of education, charter school or day care center from allowing an officer or employee of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement to enter a schoolsite or day care center for any purpose without providing valid identification, a written statement of purposes, and a valid judicial warrant, and receiving approval from the specified school or day care center official. AB 49 has been referred to the Assembly Education and Judiciary Committees.
SB 98 (Pérez, 2025) requires the governing boards of local educational agencies, CSU, each California Community College District, and each Cal Grant qualifying independent institution of higher education and requests the UC Regents to issue a notification to specified individuals when the presence of immigration enforcement is confirmed on their respective campuses or schoolsites. SB 98 is set to be heard on April 8 in the Senate Judiciary Committee.
SUPPORT
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond (co-sponsor)
CFT- A Union of Educators & Classified Professionals AFT, AFL-CIO (co-sponsor)
Alameda County
Alameda County Office of Education
Alliance College-Ready Public Schools
Alum Rock Union Elementary School District
Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California
Aspire Public Schools
Berryessa Union School District
California Alliance of Child and Family Services
California Association for Bilingual Education
California Association of Food Banks
California Charter Schools Association
California Civil Liberties Advocacy
California School Employees Association
California State Council of Service Employees International Union
California State PTA
Californians Together
Cambrian School District
Campbell Union High School District
Children Now
Children’s Institute
Chinese for Affirmative Action
Church State Council
City of Santa Ana
Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights
County of Alameda
County of Monterey
County of Santa Cruz
Democrats of Rossmoor
Drug Policy Alliance
El Rancho Unified School District
Ella Baker Center for Human Right
First 5 California
Fremont Union High School District
Friends Committee on Legislation of California
KIPP SoCal Public Schools
Los Altos School District
Los Angeles County Democratic Party
Los Angeles County School Trustee Association
Mexican-American Legal Defense and Ed Fund
Milpitas Unified School District
Morgan Hill Unified School District
Mount Pleasant Elementary School District
Mountain View Los Altos High School District
Multi-Faith ACTION Coalition
Oak Grove School District
Oakland Privacy
Orchard School District
Pacific Juvenile Defender Center
Pomona Unified School District
Santa Barbara Women’s Political Committee
Santa Clara County Office of Education
Santa Clara County School Boards Association
Santa Clara Unified School District
Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors
Santa Monica Alternative Schoolhouse PTSA
Seneca Family of Agencies
Sunnyvale School District
The Lincoln Middle School Parent-Teachers Association
Thirty-Third District PTA
Vision y Compromiso
Western Center on Law & Poverty
OPPOSITION
None received
-- END --
Discussed in Hearing
39MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Education
11MIN
Assembly Floor
7MIN
Senate Floor
19MIN
Assembly Standing Committee on Education
30MIN
Senate Floor
7SEC
Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations
9MIN
Senate Standing Committee on Judiciary
29MIN
