Starns v. Malkerson

District Court, D. Minnesota
326 F.Supp. 234 (1970)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A state university regulation imposing a one-year durational residency requirement to qualify for in-state tuition does not violate the Equal Protection Clause, as it is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of achieving partial cost equalization between recent and long-term residents.

Facts:

In 1968, the plaintiffs married their husbands while the husbands were attending law school in Chicago.
In June 1969, the plaintiffs moved to Minnesota with their husbands, who had secured employment in the state.
The plaintiffs intended to make Minnesota their permanent home and establish bona fide domicile upon arrival.
For the 1969-1970 school year, both plaintiffs enrolled as full-time students at the University of Minnesota.
Pursuant to a Board of Regents regulation, the University classified the plaintiffs as non-resident students because they had not lived in Minnesota for at least one year.
This non-resident classification required the plaintiffs to pay tuition more than double the amount charged to resident students.

Procedural Posture:

Plaintiffs appealed their non-resident tuition classifications to the University's Board of Review on Resident Status.
On January 12, 1970, the Board re-classified plaintiffs as residents but ruled that the change for tuition purposes would only become effective on the one-year anniversary of their continuous presence in Minnesota.
Plaintiffs filed this action in the U.S. District Court, asserting that the one-year durational residency requirement violated their rights under the Equal Protection Clause.
A three-judge district court was convened to hear the constitutional challenge.

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 state university regulation that creates an irrebuttable presumption that a person is a non-resident for tuition purposes until they have been domiciled in the state for one year violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Opinions:

Majority - Lord, J.

No. A state university regulation requiring a one-year period of residency to qualify for in-state tuition does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The court distinguished this case from Shapiro v. Thompson, which struck down a one-year waiting period for welfare benefits. Unlike welfare, which involves the basic necessities of life, higher education at a reduced cost is not a fundamental right that would trigger a 'compelling state interest' test. The regulation does not penalize the constitutional right to travel, as it is unlikely to deter interstate migration and is not intended to exclude newcomers. Therefore, the regulation must only survive the rational basis test. The court found that the one-year waiting period is rationally related to the legitimate state objective of achieving partial cost equalization, ensuring that new residents make some contribution to the state's economy through taxes and other means before receiving the benefit of subsidized tuition. This classification is not an arbitrary, permanent barrier like the one struck down in Carrington v. Rash; rather, it is a reasonable durational requirement that any student can satisfy.

Analysis:

This decision solidifies the constitutionality of durational residency requirements for in-state tuition, a common practice among public universities. By applying the lenient rational basis test rather than strict scrutiny, the court gives states significant deference in creating classifications for economic benefits that are not considered fundamental rights. The case establishes a key distinction between denying basic necessities (like welfare in Shapiro), which penalizes the right to travel and requires a compelling state interest, and denying a subsidy for a non-fundamental benefit (like lower tuition), which only requires a rational relationship to a legitimate government purpose. This ruling provides a clear legal foundation for states to justify such policies on the grounds of fiscal responsibility and ensuring contributions from residents who benefit from state services.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: Starns v. Malkerson (1970)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature