California Governor Vetoes Bill to Protect School Funding During Immigration Enforcement
Assembly Bill 1348 would have allowed schools to maintain state funding when attendance drops due to immigration enforcement, but the Governor vetoed the measure in October 2025.
A conceptual editorial illustration about California Governor Vetoes Bill to Protect School Funding During Immigration Enforcement.Power the People editorial illustration
<h2>At a glance</h2>
<p>Assembly Bill 1348 (AB 1348) was a proposal introduced by Assembly Member Jasmeet Bains during the 2025-2026 legislative session. The bill sought to add “immigration enforcement activity” to the list of emergencies that allow California school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools to maintain their state funding levels even if student attendance drops significantly. Under current law, schools receive state funds based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA), meaning they lose money when students are absent. AB 1348 would have protected this funding for up to 10 days per pupil during immigration-related disruptions.</p>
<p>The measure also included requirements for schools to provide live or synchronous instruction during these closures and exempted related documentation from public records requests to protect student privacy. Although the bill passed both the Assembly and the Senate with strong support, Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed it on October 13, 2025. The Legislature did not override the veto, and the consideration of the veto was stricken from the file in January 2026, meaning the bill did not become law [<a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1348">Legislative Status</a>].</p>
<h2>What the bill would do</h2>
<p>AB 1348 aimed to amend Sections 46392 and 46393 of the Education Code. Its primary function was to treat immigration enforcement activities as a qualifying emergency for ADA funding credits. Specifically, the bill defined “immigration enforcement activity” as any effort on or after January 1, 2025, to investigate or enforce federal civil immigration laws, as well as certain federal criminal immigration laws regarding presence, entry, or employment in the United States [<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1348/id/3268851">Enrolled Bill Text</a>].</p>
<p>If a school experienced a material decrease in attendance due to such activities, it could submit an affidavit to the Superintendent of Public Instruction. The Superintendent would then estimate the ADA as if the emergency had not occurred, ensuring the school received its full expected funding. However, this credit was capped at 10 days of missed attendance per pupil [<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1348/id/3268851">Enrolled Bill Text</a>].</p>
<p>Beyond funding, the bill imposed instructional requirements. For closures related to immigration enforcement between January 1, 2025, and June 30, 2026, schools were required to include a plan for independent study that offered live interaction or synchronous instruction. If a school could not provide live instruction due to extenuating circumstances, it had to describe those circumstances and outline alternative support measures for students [<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1348/id/3268851">Enrolled Bill Text</a>].</p>
<p>To address privacy concerns, the bill exempted any documentation submitted to the Superintendent regarding immigration enforcement activities from the California Public Records Act. The Legislature included findings stating that this exemption was necessary to protect the privacy and safety of California residents [<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1348/id/3268851">Enrolled Bill Text</a>]. The provisions were set to expire on July 1, 2029.</p>
<h2>Why supporters may favor it</h2>
<p>Proponents of AB 1348 likely argued that schools should not face financial penalties for circumstances beyond their control. By maintaining funding during immigration enforcement disruptions, schools could continue to support affected students without losing critical resources. This stability is particularly important for districts with high populations of immigrant families who may be disproportionately impacted by federal enforcement actions.</p>
<p>Supporters may also have contended that requiring live or synchronous instruction helps mitigate learning loss during unexpected closures. Unlike asynchronous assignments, live instruction allows for real-time interaction between teachers and students, which can be crucial for maintaining engagement and addressing immediate questions or concerns. Additionally, advocates may have asserted that exempting records from public disclosure protects the privacy and safety of students and families involved in immigration proceedings, preventing potential targeting or harassment [<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1348/id/3268851">Enrolled Bill Text</a>].</p>
<h2>Why critics may object</h2>
<p>Opponents may have argued that adding immigration enforcement to the list of emergencies expands state liability or complicates administrative processes for schools. Determining whether an absence is directly linked to immigration enforcement activity could require schools to collect sensitive information, raising logistical and ethical challenges. Critics may also have contended that the public records exemption reduces transparency and accountability, making it difficult for the public to understand how schools report and manage these incidents.</p>
<p>Some critics may have argued that the 10-day cap is insufficient to cover prolonged disruptions caused by significant enforcement activities. If a community experiences widespread fear or actual enforcement actions over several weeks, the funding protection would run out, potentially leaving schools with significant budget shortfalls. Others may have questioned the fiscal impact on the State School Fund if multiple districts claim ADA credits simultaneously, although the provided text does not detail specific cost estimates [<a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1348">Legislative Status</a>].</p>
<h2>Who may be affected</h2>
<p>The primary groups affected by this proposal would have been pupils impacted by immigration enforcement activities and their families. Schools in communities with large immigrant populations would have been most likely to utilize the provisions. School districts, county offices of education, and charter schools would have needed to adjust their administrative procedures to document these emergencies and implement the required instructional plans. The Superintendent of Public Instruction would have been responsible for reviewing affidavits and calculating funding adjustments.</p>
<h2>What the vote record shows</h2>
<p>AB 1348 received broad support in both chambers of the Legislature. In the Assembly, the bill passed on June 2, 2025, with a vote of 62 to 13 [<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1348/id/1583375">Assembly Roll Call</a>]. After amendments in the Senate, the Assembly concurred with the Senate changes on September 9, 2025, with a vote of 62 to 15 [<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1348/id/1601452">Assembly Concurrence Roll Call</a>].</p>
<p>In the Senate, the bill passed on September 8, 2025, with a vote of 30 to 8 [<a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1348/id/1601280">Senate Roll Call</a>]. Despite this legislative success, the Governor vetoed the bill on October 13, 2025. The Legislature did not attempt to override the veto, and the matter was closed in January 2026 [<a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1348">Legislative Status</a>].</p>
<h2>What happens next</h2>
<p>Because the Governor vetoed AB 1348 and the Legislature did not override the veto, the bill did not become law. The existing laws regarding ADA and emergency funding remain unchanged. Schools continue to operate under the previous rules, where immigration enforcement activities are not explicitly listed as a qualifying emergency for ADA funding credits. For more context on how California schools handle immigration-related issues, readers can explore our reporting on the <a href="/blog/california/california-enacts-safe-haven-schools-act-to-restrict-immigration-enforcement-on-campus">Safe Haven Schools Act</a> or learn about <a href="/blog/california/documents-required-immigration-officers-enter-school">what documents immigration officers must present to enter school campuses</a>.</p>
<h2>Sources</h2>
<ul>
<li><a href="https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billStatusClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1348">Official Bill Status Page</a></li>
<li><a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1348/id/3268851">Selected Enrolled Bill Text</a></li>
<li><a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB1348/2025">LegiScan Record</a></li>
<li><a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1348/id/1583375">Assembly Third Reading Roll Call (June 2, 2025)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1348/id/1601280">Senate Third Reading Roll Call (September 8, 2025)</a></li>
<li><a href="https://legiscan.com/CA/rollcall/AB1348/id/1601452">Assembly Concurrence in Senate Amendments Roll Call (September 9, 2025)</a></li>
</ul>
