WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 49

Relating to: a minor’s authority to consent to health care.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Mike Bare and 14 co-sponsors

AB 49 bars immigration enforcement from school nonpublic areas; requires ID checks; prohibits sharing student data without warrants; updates policies to shield families.

Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 49

Summary — AB 49 (Muratsuchi) — "California Safe Haven Schools Act"

Relating to schoolsite interactions with immigration enforcement

Status: Introduced December 2, 2024; Representative Joers added as coauthor.
Digest key: urgency bill (effective immediately if enacted); requires 2/3 vote; fiscal committee review; creates a state‑mandated local program (possible reimbursement).

Purpose / Intent

AB 49 strengthens protections intended to keep California public schools safe and accessible to all pupils regardless of immigration status by limiting immigration enforcement activities and disclosure of pupil information on school property. The bill cites research linking immigration enforcement to reduced enrollment, increased absenteeism, and poorer student outcomes, and expresses legislative intent to restrict enforcement activity where children are present.

Key provisions

  • Prohibition on entry to nonpublic areas: School officials and employees of local educational agencies (LEAs — school districts, county offices of education, charter schools) shall not allow an officer or employee of an agency conducting immigration enforcement to enter a “nonpublic area” of a schoolsite for any purpose unless presented with a valid judicial warrant, judicial subpoena, or court order. (The bill references a definition of “nonpublic area.”)
  • Identification request: School officials and employees must, to the extent practicable, request valid identification from immigration enforcement personnel seeking access to a nonpublic area.
  • Records and information disclosure restriction: LEAs and personnel are prohibited from disclosing or providing (in any form — written, verbal, electronic) education records or any information about a pupil or the pupil’s family/household to immigration enforcement personnel unless presented with a valid judicial warrant, subpoena, or court order, or the pupil’s parent/guardian’s written consent.
  • Model policy updates: The Attorney General must update (by December 1, 2025) the state model policies limiting school assistance with immigration enforcement; LEAs must update their local policies to align with the law and make them available to the State Department of Education upon request by March 1, 2026.
  • Severability and urgency: The bill makes the provisions severable and declares the act an urgency statute (intended to take effect immediately upon enactment).
  • Mandates and reimbursement: By imposing duties on LEAs, the bill constitutes a state‑mandated local program; if the Commission on State Mandates finds costs, reimbursement will follow statutory procedures.

Who is affected

  • Directly: Local educational agencies, school administrators, and school employees (responsible for access, records, reporting and compliance).
  • Beneficiaries: Pupils and their families — especially immigrant and mixed‑status families — whose presence and records at school would receive expanded protection from immigration enforcement activity on campus.
  • Indirectly: Agencies conducting immigration enforcement and local law enforcement that may interact at or near schoolsites.

Compliance and timeline highlights

  • Attorney General update of model policies due by December 1, 2025.
  • LEAs required to update their policies and make them available to the State Department of Education by March 1, 2026.
  • Because the bill declares urgency, it is written to take effect immediately if enacted (2/3 legislative vote required for urgency status).

Practical considerations

  • LEAs will need to revise and publicly post/update policies, train staff on when to request identification and how to handle requests from enforcement personnel, and ensure procedures for protecting education records consistent with federal and state privacy laws (e.g., FERPA) and the bill’s warrant/subpoena standard.
  • The bill anticipates possible state reimbursement obligations if the Commission on State Mandates determines there are costs mandated by the state.

If you’d like, I can produce: (1) a short checklist LEAs can use to implement the bill’s requirements; (2) a comparison of AB 49 to current Education Code Section 234.7 and existing Attorney General model policies; or (3) a one‑page policy template for local boards.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.