BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1024
Page 1
( Without Reference to File )
CONCURRENCE IN SENATE AMENDMENTS
AB 1024 (Gonzalez)
As Amended September 6, 2013
Majority vote
-----------------------------------------------------------------
|ASSEMBLY: | |(May 16, 2013) |SENATE: |29-5 |(September 11, |
| | | | | |2013) |
-----------------------------------------------------------------
(vote not relevant)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
|COMMITTEE VOTE: |9-1 |(September 12, |RECOMMENDATION: |concur |
|(JUD.) | |2013) | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Original Committee Reference: H. & C.D.
SUMMARY : Provides that upon certification by the examining
committee of the State Bar that an applicant who is not lawfully
present in the United States has fulfilled the requirements for
admission to practice law, the Supreme Court may admit that
applicant as an attorney at law in all the courts of this state and
may direct an order to be entered upon its records to that effect.
The Senate amendments delete the Assembly version of this bill, and
instead substitute the current provisions of the bill.
FISCAL EFFECT : According to the Senate Appropriations Committee,
pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, negligible state costs.
COMMENTS : The federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), Pub. L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105
(Aug. 22, 1996) prohibits certain categories of individuals not
lawfully present in the United States from receiving certain public
benefits, including "any grant, contract, loan, professional
license, or commercial license provided by an agency of a State or
local government or by appropriated funds of a State or local
government." (8 United States Code (U.S.C.) Section 1621(c).)
PRWORA provides that a state may render "an alien who is not
lawfully present in the United States . . . eligible for any State
or local public benefit for which such alien would otherwise be
AB 1024
Page 2
ineligible . . . through the enactment of a State law after the
date of the enactment of this Act which affirmatively provides for
such eligibility." (8 U.S.C. Section 1621(d).) Consistent with
that provision, this bill seeks to expressly extend eligibility to
obtain a license to practice law to individuals who are not
lawfully present in the United States.
The Supreme Court is currently considering whether Sergio Garcia is
eligible for admission to practice law in the State of California.
(See In re Sergio C. Garcia on Admission, S202512, May 15, 2012.)
Mr. Garcia has reportedly been unlawfully present in the United
States for approximately 20 years, and is currently petitioning the
federal government for an immigrant visa. During his time in the
United States, Mr. Garcia has apparently graduated from law school,
passed the California Bar Exam, and has been found by the Committee
of Bar Examiners to have met all the necessary requirements for
admission to practice law in the State of California. However,
given his immigration status, it may be uncertain whether the
Supreme Court can admit Mr. Garcia consistently with federal law.
Indeed, the U.S. Department of Justice has filed an amicus brief in
the Garcia case opining that 8 U.S.C. Section 1621 precludes
issuance of a law license to Mr. Garcia, but also noting that
federal law allows California to enact a law making undocumented
immigrants eligible for this public benefit.
Although some have argued that existing law should be sufficient,
this bill seeks to clarify the question by expressly providing that
the Supreme Court may admit an applicant who is not lawfully
present in the United States as an attorney at law in all the
courts of this state upon certification by the State Bar examining
committee that the applicant has fulfilled the requirements for
admission to practice law.
Analysis Prepared by : Kevin G. Baker / JUD. / (916) 319-2334
FN:
0002866