Legal Challenges Expected over Slave Descendant Priority College Admission Bill

A bill based on a Reparations Task Force suggestion that would give admission priority to the descendants of slaves at the University of California (UC) and California State University (CSU) faced growing challenges this week following multiple lawyers saying that the bill would face automatic legal challenges if passed.

Assembly Bill 7, authored by Assemblyman Isaac Bryan (D-Los Angeles), would specifically allow the California State University, the University of California, independent institutions of higher education, and private postsecondary educational institutions to consider providing a preference in admissions to an applicant who is a descendant of slavery to the extent it does not conflict with federal law.

AB 7 comes following a downswing in popularity of reparations legislation. Following the George Floyd incident in 2020, the state set up a Reparations Task Force in charge of identifying possible reparations in California for the descendants of slavery. This task was complicated following a huge public and lawmaker backlash against monetary payments, necessitating the list being altered to give non-monetary recommendations. Following their final list of recommendations released in June 2023, lawmakers began creating bills around them. In 2024, fourteen of the recommendations were considered, but by the end of the session in September, only a few managed to have been passed. All the little-to-no cost measures with no real legal or political challenges made it, like AB 3089, in which the state issues an apology over slavery and puts a plaque in the Capitol to commemorate it.

However, other bills proved to stand no chance, with some not even making it into the summer. This included two bills that were held back in the Senate in May because of high costs. One, SB 1013, would have given major financial property tax assistance solely for black descendants of slaves. The other, SB 1007, would have given housing grants for the same group in formerly redlined areas. Other bills limped along into the slog of August where more were sorted out. High cost bills still bit the dust.

Most critically was Senate Bill 1403, which would have created the California American Freedman Affairs Agency to assist Californians with reparations program, and, Senate Bill 1331, which would have created the reparations fund. Both were cast off to the inactive file following Governor Gavin Newsom saying that he wouldn’t sign them. Newsom also vetoed another critical bill, SB 1050, that would have given black families a way to either get land back or compensation for land wrongfully taken because of racially motivated means. Reparations were likewise completely voted down by voters on the ballot, with Proposition 6, which would have halted involuntary servitude as punishment for a crime, being soundly defeated.

Despite so few passing, reparations proponents vowed to try again in 2025. In December, Bryan introduced AB 7, the first reparations bill of the upcoming year. He gave his reasons for the bill in his AB 7 announcement, saying that the bill would rectify both past and present discriminations at state universities.

Growing issues with AB 7

“For decades universities gave preferential admission treatment to donors, and their family members, while others tied to legacies of harm were ignored and at times outright excluded,” said Bryan las month. “We have a moral responsibility to do all we can to right those wrongs. There is a growing understanding of California’s role in perpetuating the inequalities that arose from slavery, and there’s a willingness to try to rectify that harm, to heal that harm.

“The purpose of the measure is to rectify past and current discrimination at universities. When folks think about reparations, they think about just cash payments. But repairing the harm and the inequality that came from slavery and the policies thereafter is a much bigger process.”

While the bill has been roundly criticized since then, the number of potential legal challenges if the bill is passed spiked this week. Multiple lawyers and legal analysts listed more and more laws that AB 7 would likely break. However, the foremost charge against AB 7 could prove to be the bill’s total undoing. The charge? Racial discrimination.

“Prioritizing the status of those who self-identify as descendants of U.S. slaves in college admissions is the same as using racial classifications,” explained Students for Fair Admissions President Edward Blum. “Being a descendant of a slave is an exact proxy for being an African American. Any legislation that awards reparations or benefits based on race or ethnicity will be vigorously challenged in federal court. Racial proxies, including ancestral servitude and past discrimination, will be challenged as well.”

Those charges come with significant clout, as Students for Fair Admissions was the group behind the two lawsuits that resulted in affirmative action being overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023. But other lawyers and analysts noted multiple other ways that the bill could be challenged as well.

“This is assuming that AB 7 passes, which at the moment, doesn’t look all that likely,” added said Katherine Douglas, a Washington-based analyst who focuses on state reparation efforts, to the Globe on Thursday. “And we have to assume that Governor Newsom also doesn’t veto it. Now, there is racial discrimination to go after. Beyond that, you can tie this into being affirmative action, you can have AB 7 being in violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause. If jobs on campus are involved, you can throw in some EEOC violations. There’s a lot of ways about this.

“This week has been especially jarring for supporters as a lot of lawyers seem to be ready to take this bill down. Students for Fair Admissions already took down affirmative action. That group or another taking down this bill, in comparison, would be a piece of cake. There are so many lanes to do it in, with many likely to try different ways all at once, with preliminary injunctions likely to be filed along with these suits.

“It won’t stand a chance.”