Nyquist v. Mauclet
53 L. Ed. 2d 63, 432 U.S. 1, 1977 U.S. LEXIS 110 (1977)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state law that denies higher education financial assistance to resident aliens unless they apply for or declare their intent to seek U.S. citizenship creates a classification based on alienage that is subject to strict scrutiny and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Facts:
- New York state law § 661(3) restricted eligibility for state financial aid for higher education to U.S. citizens, those who had applied for citizenship, or those who affirmed their intent to apply as soon as eligible.
- Jean-Marie Mauclet, a French citizen and permanent legal resident of New York, was qualified for a tuition assistance award for his graduate studies.
- Mauclet wished to remain a French citizen and refused to apply for U.S. citizenship.
- As a result of his refusal, state officials did not process Mauclet's application for financial aid.
- Alan Rabinovitch, a Canadian citizen and permanent legal resident of New York since childhood, qualified for a competitive Regents scholarship and tuition assistance based on his academic performance.
- State officials withdrew the scholarship offer after Rabinovitch stated he intended to retain his Canadian citizenship.
- Both Mauclet and Rabinovitch were long-term residents of New York who paid taxes.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellee Mauclet filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York.
- Appellee Rabinovitch filed a separate suit in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York.
- A single three-judge District Court was convened and ordered the cases to be heard together.
- On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court ruled in favor of Mauclet and Rabinovitch, holding the New York statute violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- The District Court permanently enjoined the enforcement of the statute.
- The state officials responsible for the programs (appellants) filed a direct appeal with the Supreme Court of the United States.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a New York statute that prohibits resident aliens from receiving state financial assistance for higher education unless they apply for U.S. citizenship, or affirm their intent to do so as soon as eligible, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Blackmun
Yes. The New York statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. State classifications based on alienage are inherently suspect and subject to strict judicial scrutiny, and New York's law fails to survive this scrutiny. The court rejected the state's argument that the law discriminates only within the class of aliens, noting that the law is directed at aliens and only aliens are harmed by it. The state's proffered justifications—providing an incentive for naturalization and enhancing the education of the electorate—are not substantial enough to justify the discrimination. Control over naturalization is an exclusive federal power, so a state cannot legislate to encourage it. Furthermore, the goal of an educated electorate is not frustrated by including resident aliens, and this interest does not fall within the narrow 'political community' exception established in Sugarman v. Dougall, which is limited to defining qualifications for voters and important public officials.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger
No. The New York statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Unlike prior cases that involved the right to earn a livelihood or access to essential welfare benefits, this case concerns higher education, which is not a fundamental personal interest. The state has a rational interest in ensuring that recipients of its limited educational funds are those most likely to provide a long-range return to the community. It is reasonable for the state to conclude that citizens and aliens who commit to becoming citizens are more likely to remain in the state and contribute than aliens who refuse to do so. The state is not constitutionally compelled to apply its finite resources to the higher education of aliens who have demonstrated no permanent attachment to the United States.
Dissenting - Justice Powell
No. The New York law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Strict scrutiny is inappropriate here because the law does not discriminate between aliens and citizens, but rather between aliens who prefer to retain foreign citizenship and all others, which is not a suspect class. The state has a substantial and permissible interest in encouraging allegiance to the United States. Reserving scholarship assistance to citizens and those resident aliens who declare their intention to become citizens is a rational means of furthering that legitimate interest, so long as it does not conflict with federal immigration policy.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No. The statute is constitutional because strict scrutiny is unwarranted in this case. Alienage is a suspect classification because aliens are a 'discrete and insular' minority, defined by a status they are powerless to change for a period of time. However, this New York statute does not create such a classification, because a resident alien can, at any time, remove himself from the disfavored class by simply declaring an intention to become a citizen. Since the alien has control over their classification, the core reason for applying strict scrutiny is absent. Under the more deferential rational-basis test, the state's decision to distribute limited funds to citizens and those intending to become citizens is a permissible legislative judgment.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the principle established in Graham v. Richardson that state classifications based on alienage are inherently suspect and subject to strict scrutiny. It clarifies that a state's interest in encouraging naturalization is not a permissible state objective, as it encroaches upon the exclusive federal power over immigration and naturalization. The ruling also narrowly construes the 'political community' exception, limiting its application to core government functions like voting and holding important public office, thereby preventing states from using it as a broad justification for discriminating against resident aliens in the distribution of public benefits like educational funding.
