It is exactly as AG stated, the SOTUS rejected the case. Basically the reason was that the Calif law states that if a person has attended a Calif high school for 3 years, they may attend a Calif college or university as a Calif resident. That was the reason the SOTUS did not want to hear the case. The SOTUS reasoned that the Calif law was not about immigration because it would also cover legal citizens who had attended a Calif high school and had then moved out of state, so it wasn't pertaining to their legal status as a citizen which would fall under federal law.
This was the loophole that Calif knew would get their "Dream Act" through. But it is still unfair and this state will pay dearly for such pandering in the near future.
Kobach at center of two Supreme Court decisions in illegal immigration cases
Topeka — The U.S. Supreme Court has issued two decisions in illegal immigration cases that involved Kansas Secretary of State Kris Kobach.
On Monday, the court refused to review a California Supreme Court ruling that upheld a state law giving
California high school graduates reduced in-state tuition at state schools, regardless of their immigration status. The court did not give a reasons for its action.
Kobach, a Republican, was the lead attorney for the plaintiffs suing to have the law overturned.
Eleven other states, including Kansas, grant similar benefits to illegal immigrants. The others are: Illinois, Maryland, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, Oklahoma, Texas, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.
On Tuesday, Kobach said the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider the case
did not mean that it supports the California law.
He said the court may be waiting for more lower court rulings on similar laws in other states before it takes up the matter. Kobach is leading a similar lawsuit in Nebraska.
In another case Monday, the high court vacated an appellate court decision that declared a Hazleton, Penn. illegal immigration ordinance unconstitutional. The court sent the case back to the lower court for reconsideration.
"That was a big victory for the proponents of illegal immigration enforcement," Kobach said. But opponents of the Hazleton ordinance said the court's decision doesn't mean the lower court will automatically reverse its earlier ruling.
Among other things, the Hazleton ordinance requires businesses to use the federal E-Verity database to see if a worker is legally in the United States. Last month, the Supreme Court upheld a provision in an Arizona law that did the same thing.
Kobach has represented the city of Hazleton and state of Arizona in these cases.
http://www2.ljworld.com/news/2011/ju...ions-illegal-/