Toll v. Moreno case brief summary
458 U.S. 1 (1982)
CASE FACTS
Respondents, nonimmigrant G-4 aliens, were denied in-state status by petitioner state university because petitioner's policy excluded all domiciled nonimmigrant G-4 aliens from attaining in-state status. The district court found that petitioner's policy violated the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Constitutional amendment VI, clause 2.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the lower court's decision that petitioner state university's policy barring respondents, nonimmigrant aliens with G-4 visas, from acquiring in-state status violated the Supremacy Clause. The court noted that the federal government admitted G-4 aliens into the country on terms that permitted them to establish domicile in the United States; thus, a state could not prevent a G-4 alien from acquiring domicile.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
458 U.S. 1 (1982)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Petitioner state university sought
review of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit's
decision that petitioner's policy of denying respondents,
nonimmigrant aliens with G-4 visas, in-state status for the purposes
of university admissions and fees violated the Supremacy Clause, U.S.
Constitutional amendment VI, clause 2.CASE FACTS
Respondents, nonimmigrant G-4 aliens, were denied in-state status by petitioner state university because petitioner's policy excluded all domiciled nonimmigrant G-4 aliens from attaining in-state status. The district court found that petitioner's policy violated the Supremacy Clause, U.S. Constitutional amendment VI, clause 2.
DISCUSSION
- The appellate court affirmed.
- Petitioner challenged the appellate court's holding on the basis that its policy was justified because respondents' parents' salaries from international banks were exempt from state taxation under state law.
- Thus, the dollar differential between in-state status and out of state fees charged by the university equaled the amount foregone in taxes.
- However, the court held that this was an impermissible basis on which to discriminate against respondents.
- The court discussed the federal government's authority to regulate the status of aliens and noted that Congress had specifically allowed nonimmigrant aliens with G-4 visas to acquire domicile.
- Therefore, petitioner's decision to deny in-state status to respondents solely on account of the G-4 alien's federal immigration status amounted to an ancillary burden not contemplated by Congress.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the lower court's decision that petitioner state university's policy barring respondents, nonimmigrant aliens with G-4 visas, from acquiring in-state status violated the Supremacy Clause. The court noted that the federal government admitted G-4 aliens into the country on terms that permitted them to establish domicile in the United States; thus, a state could not prevent a G-4 alien from acquiring domicile.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment