Toll, President, University of Maryland, et al. v. Moreno et al.
458 U.S. 1 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state policy that denies in-state tuition status to domiciled nonimmigrant aliens holding G-4 visas violates the Supremacy Clause because it imposes a burden inconsistent with federal immigration policy and frustrates federal policies affording tax exemptions to these aliens.
Facts:
- The University of Maryland, a state-operated institution, maintained a policy granting preferential in-state tuition rates to U.S. citizens and immigrant aliens domiciled in Maryland.
- This policy categorically denied in-state status to all nonimmigrant aliens, regardless of whether they were domiciled in the state.
- Juan Carlos Moreno and other students at the university were financially dependent on parents who held G-4 nonimmigrant visas.
- G-4 visas are issued to officers or employees of certain international organizations (like the World Bank) and their immediate families.
- These G-4 visa holders resided and were domiciled in Maryland.
- Pursuant to its policy, the University of Maryland denied these students in-state tuition status solely because of their federal G-4 immigration classification.
- Federal immigration law permits G-4 visa holders, unlike many other nonimmigrant aliens, to establish domicile in the United States.
- The parents of the students, as G-4 visa holders, were exempt from federal, state, and local income taxes on their salaries from the international organizations, pursuant to federal treaties and statutes.
Procedural Posture:
- Juan Carlos Moreno and other students filed a class-action suit against the University of Maryland and its President in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
- The District Court granted summary judgment for the students, finding the policy's irrebuttable presumption of non-domicile for G-4 aliens violated the Due Process Clause.
- The University appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari, certified a question about state domicile law to the Maryland Court of Appeals, and upon receiving an answer and learning of a new university resolution, vacated the appellate judgment and remanded to the District Court for reconsideration.
- On remand, the District Court again ruled for the students, holding the policy violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Supremacy Clause.
- The University appealed again, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the District Court's decision.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
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's policy that categorically denies in-state tuition status to domiciled nonimmigrant G-4 visa holders violate the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, the University of Maryland's in-state policy, as applied to G-4 aliens and their dependents, violates the Supremacy Clause. State regulation that discriminates against aliens lawfully admitted to the country is impermissible if it imposes additional burdens not contemplated by Congress. The federal government has preeminent authority over immigration. Federal law specifically permits G-4 aliens to establish domicile, and the federal government has granted them significant tax exemptions to benefit international organizations. Maryland's policy frustrates these federal objectives by imposing a discriminatory tuition burden based solely on the aliens' federal status. The state's justification of recouping lost tax revenue is impermissible, as it amounts to an indirect attempt to tax what the federal government, through treaties and statutes, has declared exempt.
Dissenting - Justice Rehnquist
No, the university's policy does not violate the Supremacy Clause. The Court improperly inverts the presumption against preemption of state laws. There is no actual conflict between Maryland's tuition policy and federal law, nor is there a clear congressional mandate to preempt this area. The federal government's decision to permit G-4 aliens to establish domicile does not dictate state tuition policies. Furthermore, federal statutes and treaties concerning tax exemptions do not create a conflict; they exempt salaries from taxation, but do not require states to subsidize optional services like higher education. The policy is also constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause as it is not a suspect classification based on alienage but a rational one based on financial contribution to the state's tax base.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Yes. While I join the Court's opinion in full, I write separately to rebut the dissent's suggestion that aliens are no longer a suspect class under the Equal Protection Clause. The dissent's reasoning is 'wholly irrational.' The fact that aliens can be constitutionally excluded from the political process makes searching judicial review of classifications disadvantaging them more critical, not less. The Court's modern alienage cases consistently hold that while states may exclude aliens from core political functions, restrictions on economic interests are subject to heightened scrutiny because, for most purposes, there are no meaningful differences between resident aliens and citizens.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Justice O'Connor
Yes, in part, and no, in part. The university's policy violates the Supremacy Clause for G-4 aliens who are exempt from state taxes by federal treaty or law, as the higher tuition directly conflicts with that federal policy by attempting to recoup those funds. However, the policy does not violate the Supremacy Clause for G-4 aliens who are only exempt from federal taxes under the International Organizations Immunities Act, as Congress expressly left the matter of state taxation to the states for this group. For these aliens, there is no federal policy barring state taxation and thus no conflict to support preemption.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the doctrine of federal preemption in immigration law, affirming that states cannot impose burdens on lawfully admitted aliens that conflict with federal policy, even in traditionally state-controlled areas like education. The decision extends the principles of Graham v. Richardson and Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n by establishing that preemption can be based on the frustration of federal policy objectives, such as the tax benefits granted to international organizations. It serves as a key precedent for challenging state laws that create classifications based on federal immigration status that disadvantage specific categories of aliens.
Unlock the full brief for Toll, President, University of Maryland, et al. v. Moreno et al.