SB 307 adds Section 66093.2 to the California Education Code to require the Trustees of the California State University, and to request the Regents of the University of California, to adopt specific protections for undocumented students who lose access to campus because of immigration enforcement. The bill directs institutions to protect eligibility for the nonresident tuition exemption tied to Section 68130.5, to have staff and designated Dreamer Resource Liaisons help students access financial aid and academic supports, and to adopt a systemwide policy covering course grades, administrative withdrawal, and reenrollment for students unable to attend by the final drop date due to enforcement activity.
This matters because it converts a set of precautionary practices into a statutory obligation for CSU and an explicit policy request to UC, clarifying institutional responsibilities at points — grade changes, withdrawals, and reenrollment — that directly affect a student’s progress and costs. The bill centralizes certain protections but leaves operational details to system policy, creating both clearer direction and room for variation in implementation.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds Education Code Section 66093.2. It requires CSU trustees to adopt systemwide measures (and asks UC Regents to do the same) that preserve a qualifying undocumented student’s eligibility for the nonresident tuition exemption under Section 68130.5, provide staff support to access financial aid and academic resources, and create a policy on grades, administrative withdrawal, and reenrollment when immigration enforcement prevents attendance by the final drop date.
Who It Affects
Directly affects California State University campuses (mandatory) and University of California campuses (requested), undocumented students on those campuses, registrars, financial aid offices, and designated Dreamer Resource Liaisons. It will also shape campus academic-advising and enrollment processes.
Why It Matters
The bill converts ad hoc campus accommodations into a statutory framework for handling enforcement-related absences, reducing immediate risk to tuition status and academic progress. But because the statute delegates timing and procedural choices to systemwide policy and makes UC compliance a request rather than a mandate, protections could vary across campuses.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB 307 creates a new Education Code provision focused on undocumented students who cannot attend classes because of immigration enforcement activity. It defines the covered "institutions" narrowly — California State University and University of California campuses — and places an affirmative obligation on CSU (and a formal request to UC) to adopt policies that prevent an enforcement-related absence from derailing a student’s academic and financial standing.
The bill ties one specific protection to existing law: if a student meets the eligibility criteria listed in subdivision (a)(1) and (2) of Section 68130.5, their inability to meet academic requirements due to immigration enforcement shall not disqualify them from the nonresident tuition exemption that Section 68130.5 provides. That protects a key cost element for many undocumented students who otherwise qualify as exempt from nonresident tuition.SB 307 also requires institutions to ensure that staff and the campus Dreamer Resource Liaison actively assist undocumented students in accessing financial aid and academic resources.
This is a direction to move support work into defined campus roles rather than leaving it to individual advisors or students to find help. Finally, the bill requires adoption of a systemwide policy addressing three operational points — course grades, administrative withdrawal, and reenrollment — for students who miss the final drop date because of enforcement.
The policy must include a specified timeframe during which a student withdrawn for nonattendance can be reenrolled and retain the same academic status upon submitting written confirmation they intend to return.Those are the law’s mechanics; what isn’t in the text is equally important. SB 307 compels systems to write the rules (and for CSU, to make them systemwide), but it does not itself set the reenrollment timeframe, lay out the evidence standard for an enforcement-related absence, or create a state enforcement mechanism to audit compliance.
The statute thus sets firm goals and delegates the administrative specifics to system policymaking and campus implementation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
SB 307 adds Section 66093.2 to the Education Code and defines “institution” as a CSU or UC campus.
The Trustees of the California State University must implement the new measures; the Regents of the University of California are formally requested, not required, to do the same.
The bill protects a student’s eligibility for the nonresident tuition exemption under Section 68130.5 when inability to meet academic requirements results from immigration enforcement, provided the student meets the requirements in 68130.5(a)(1) and (a)(2).
Institutions must adopt a systemwide policy on course grades, administrative withdrawal, and reenrollment for students who miss the final drop date due to immigration enforcement, and that policy must include a timeframe allowing withdrawn students to reenroll and retain their prior academic status after submitting written intent to return.
Campus staff and the designated Dreamer Resource Liaison are required to assist undocumented students in accessing all financial aid and academic resources available to them.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definition—what counts as an institution
This short clause limits the statute’s scope by defining “institution” to mean a California State University campus or a University of California campus. Practically, that means community colleges and private institutions are outside the new text; the bill’s protections are targeted to the two state university systems. For compliance teams, the definition clarifies where system policies must be drafted or requested.
Preserve eligibility for the nonresident tuition exemption
This provision instructs CSU (and asks UC) to ensure that an undocumented student who cannot meet academic requirements because of immigration enforcement does not lose eligibility for the nonresident tuition exemption referenced in Section 68130.5, so long as the student satisfies the specific eligibility criteria already found in 68130.5(a)(1) and (2). Administratively, financial aid and residency offices will need to map existing 68130.5 verification processes to these enforcement-related absences so students aren’t penalized for circumstances outside their control.
Mandate assistance from staff and Dreamer Resource Liaisons
The statute requires that institutional staff and the Dreamer Resource Liaison actively assist undocumented students to access all available financial aid and academic resources. This moves responsibility toward designated campus functions and implies a need for training, clear referral protocols, and coordination between financial aid, advising, and student services to ensure students actually receive help rather than simply being told where to look.
Systemwide policy on grades, withdrawal, and reenrollment with a reenrollment timeframe
Institutions must adopt a systemwide policy dealing with grades, administrative withdrawals, and reenrollment when a student is unable to attend by the final drop date because of immigration enforcement. Critically, the bill requires the policy to specify a timeframe during which a student withdrawn for nonattendance may be reenrolled and retain the same academic status upon submitting written confirmation of intent to return. The statute hands operational design—deadlines, documentation standards, technical reenrollment steps—to the systems rather than specifying them in law, so implementation will determine how protective these rules are in practice.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Undocumented students enrolled at CSU and UC campuses—They receive statutory protection that an enforcement-related absence won’t automatically cost them a tuition-exemption benefit or irreparably harm their enrollment status, and they gain a clearer pathway to staff help and reenrollment.
- Designated Dreamer Resource Liaisons—The bill elevates and formalizes their role, giving them a statutory basis to coordinate financial aid and academic assistance and potentially access resources or authority to act on students’ behalf.
- Campus registrars and financial aid offices—They gain a statutory mandate to create policies and procedures, which reduces ad hoc decision-making and provides clearer standards for handling enforcement-related absences.
- California State University system leadership—CSU benefits from having a single, legally required systemwide policy that can streamline campus operations and reduce inconsistent campus-by-campus responses.
Who Bears the Cost
- California State University administration—CSU must draft, adopt, and implement systemwide policies, train staff, and likely revise registrar and financial-aid procedures, creating administrative and fiscal workload.
- Campus staff (registrars, financial aid officers, advising staff)—They will bear increased casework: verifying enforcement-related absences, processing administrative withdrawals and reenrollments within whatever timeframe systems adopt, and coordinating support services.
- University of California campuses—Although compliance is a request rather than a mandate, UC campuses may face pressure to adopt similar policies; those that do will incur the same implementation costs without a statutory requirement.
- Students and campus officials with privacy concerns—Institutions will need to define evidence standards for enforcement-related absences, which could create pressure on students to disclose sensitive information or generate privacy and FERPA-related workload for staff.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma SB 307 poses is straightforward: it balances the goal of robust, protective rules for undocumented students (preserving tuition exemptions and academic status) against the practical need for precise procedures and verification standards that protect campus operations and students’ privacy; leaving timing and evidentiary standards to system policy promotes flexibility but risks uneven or ineffective protection, especially since the University of California is only asked — not required — to adopt the same measures.
SB 307 sets clear policy objectives but leaves crucial operational choices to system policymakers. The statute requires a reenrollment timeframe but does not set its length, the evidence required to establish that an absence was caused by immigration enforcement, or the exact mechanics for preserving grades and status.
That delegation permits systems to tailor implementation but also risks inconsistent protections across campuses or timelines so short they fail to protect students in practice.
Another implementation challenge is verification and privacy. Campuses will need a process to determine when an absence is enforcement-related without creating reporting pathways that could expose students to greater enforcement risk.
The bill does not provide a state-level monitoring or enforcement mechanism to ensure compliance, nor does it include funding for training Dreamer Resource Liaisons or expanding registrar and financial-aid capacity. Finally, because the statute makes the UC requirement a request, students on UC campuses could receive weaker protections than those on CSU campuses, producing unequal access depending on campus and system decisions.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.