Introduction

Toll, President, University of Maryland, et al. v. Moreno et al. (458 U.S. 1) is a significant United States Supreme Court case decided on June 28, 1982. The case centers around the University of Maryland's policy of denying in-state tuition status to domiciled nonimmigrant aliens holding G-4 visas, which are issued to employees of certain international organizations and their immediate families. The respondents, members of the G-4 visa class and their dependents, challenged the university's policy, arguing that it violated the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Constitution, particularly the Supremacy Clause, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and due process rights.

The key issues in this case include the extent of federal supremacy over state policies, especially in areas intersecting with immigration law, and whether state-imposed additional burdens on lawfully admitted aliens without congressional authorization are permissible.

Summary of the Judgment

The United States Supreme Court held that the University of Maryland's policy of categorically denying in-state status to domiciled nonimmigrant aliens holding G-4 visas is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Court found that this state policy imposed additional burdens on these aliens not contemplated by Congress, thereby conflicting with federal immigration policies. Consequently, the Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which had upheld the District Court's ruling in favor of the respondents.

Additionally, the Court addressed petitioners' contention regarding the Eleventh Amendment, ruling that it did not preclude the District Court from ordering the University to pay refunds to affected class members.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The Court's decision heavily relied on several key precedents that establish the limits of state authority in discriminating against lawfully admitted aliens:

• DE CANAS v. BICA, 424 U.S. 351 (1976): Established that state regulations imposing additional burdens on lawfully admitted aliens without congressional sanction are impermissible under the Supremacy Clause.
• VLANDIS v. KLINE, 412 U.S. 441 (1973): Addressed due process concerns related to state policies affecting aliens.
• WEINBERGER v. SALFI, 422 U.S. 749 (1975): Limited the application of Vlandis, focusing on whether state policies allow aliens the opportunity to contest presumptions about their domicile.
• Takahashi v. Fish Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410 (1948): Highlighted the preeminence of federal authority over state laws that discriminate against aliens.
• GRAHAM v. RICHARDSON, 403 U.S. 365 (1971): Demonstrated that state discrimination against aliens in welfare benefits violates both the Equal Protection and Supremacy Clauses.

Legal Reasoning

The Court applied the Supremacy Clause, which establishes that federal law takes precedence over state law. It analyzed whether Maryland's policy imposing higher tuition on G-4 visa holders constituted an additional burden not contemplated by federal immigration law. The Court noted that Congress, through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, did not prohibit G-4 visa holders from establishing domicile in the United States. Additionally, federal treaties and statutes provided tax exemptions to these aliens, further reinforcing the incompatibility of Maryland's policy with federal intentions.

The Court reasoned that by denying in-state status based solely on immigration status, Maryland imposed an ancillary burden on G-4 visa holders, conflicting with federal policies aimed at facilitating the presence of international organization employees in the U.S. The policy also indirectly attempted to recoup federal tax exemptions, which the Court found impermissible.

Regarding the Eleventh Amendment claim, the Court determined that sovereign immunity did not bar the District Court from ordering refunds, as the University had effectively waived immunity by seeking the stay based on the promise of refunds.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the supremacy of federal law over state policies, particularly in areas intersecting with immigration and international affairs. It sets a precedent that states cannot impose additional discriminatory burdens on lawfully admitted aliens without explicit congressional authorization. For higher education institutions, this decision mandates compliance with federal immigration policies and prohibits differential tuition practices based solely on immigration status when no federal law precludes domicile establishment.

Furthermore, the case underscores the limitations of state autonomy in regulating benefits and obligations of nonimmigrant alien classes, ensuring that states cannot undermine federal treaties and statutes through their institutional policies.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Supremacy Clause

The Supremacy Clause is found in Article VI, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It establishes that the Constitution, federal laws made pursuant to it, and treaties made under its authority, constitute the "supreme Law of the Land." This means that federal law overrides conflicting state laws. In this case, it prevented Maryland from imposing its policy that conflicted with federal immigration statutes and treaties regarding G-4 visa holders.

G-4 Visas

G-4 visas are nonimmigrant visas issued to employees of certain international organizations and their immediate family members. Holders of G-4 visas are often exempt from certain federal and state taxes as part of international agreements, facilitating their roles in international diplomacy and administration.

In-State vs. Out-of-State Tuition

In-state tuition refers to the reduced tuition rates offered to residents of the state where a public university is located. Out-of-state tuition is higher and applies to students who do not meet residency requirements. This case addressed whether it was lawful for a state university to classify certain domiciled nonimmigrant aliens as out-of-state students based solely on their immigration status.

Equal Protection Clause

Part of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause requires states to provide equal protection under the law to all persons within their jurisdictions. This case touched upon whether the university's policy unfairly discriminated against certain classes of individuals based on their alienage, which could necessitate heightened scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause.

Conclusion

TOLL v. MORENO is a landmark case that reaffirms the supremacy of federal law over state-imposed regulations, especially in contexts intersecting with immigration and international affairs. The Supreme Court's decision invalidated the University of Maryland's policy discriminating against domiciled G-4 visa holders, emphasizing that states cannot impose additional burdens on lawfully admitted aliens absent clear congressional authorization. This ruling has significant implications for higher education institutions, ensuring compliance with federal immigration laws and preventing discriminatory practices based on immigration status. Furthermore, it underscores the judiciary's role in maintaining the hierarchical structure of laws as established by the Constitution, protecting individuals from state actions that conflict with federal mandates.

The case also highlights the ongoing balance between state autonomy and federal authority, particularly in areas affecting international relations and the regulation of noncitizen populations. As international roles and global interactions expand, the principles established in TOLL v. MORENO will continue to guide the interplay between state policies and federal laws concerning nonimmigrant aliens.