BRYAN v. REGENTS ETC

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

S. F. No. 10132.

Attorney(S)

John J. Goldberg for Petitioner. J.M. Mannon, Jr., for Respondent.

Judges

Curtis D. Wilbur

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

The petitioner, Ernestine Bryan, sought a writ of mandate to compel the Regents of the University of California to admit her as a student without paying the fee required of nonresident students. The respondent was willing to admit her only if she paid the nonresident fee of seventy-five dollars per semester, as mandated by section 1394 1/2 of the California Political Code and the rules of the state board of regents. The petitioner challenged the legality of this fee requirement, asserting it violated constitutional provisions. The Supreme Court of California, sitting in bank, denied the writ.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether section 1394 1/2 of the California Political Code and the corresponding rules of the board of regents, which require nonresident students to pay a tuition fee, violate article I, sections 11 and 21, of the California Constitution by granting privileges or immunities to some citizens but not others.
Whether the classification of students based on a one-year residency requirement for exemption from nonresident fees is reasonable and constitutional.

Arguments of the Parties

Petitioner’s Arguments

The legislation and rules requiring nonresident students to pay tuition fees violate article I, sections 11 and 21, of the California Constitution by denying equal privileges or immunities to all citizens.
Since the petitioner is a citizen of California, she should not be required to pay fees imposed only on nonresident citizens.
There is no reasonable basis for distinguishing between citizens who have resided in the state for more than one year and those who have not in the context of university admission fees.

Respondent’s Arguments

The classification based on residency is constitutional and reasonable, similar to classifications for voting rights and eligibility for public office, which require residency as evidence of bona fide intent to remain in the state.
The university’s resources are limited and the cost of educating students is a substantial burden on taxpayers, justifying the imposition of fees on nonresident students.
The one-year residency requirement serves as a reasonable measure to distinguish between permanent residents and those temporarily residing in the state solely to obtain educational advantages.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court analyzed the constitutionality of the residency-based classification for university tuition fees by comparing it to other accepted classifications under California law, such as those governing voting rights and eligibility for public office, which require evidence of bona fide residency. The court recognized the practical limitations on university resources and the significant financial burden of providing education to all citizens without distinction. It found the one-year residency requirement to be a reasonable and non-arbitrary exercise of legislative discretion, serving to ensure that only those with a genuine intent to remain in the state benefit from resident tuition rates. Consequently, the court concluded that the exclusion of the petitioner from resident status and the imposition of nonresident fees did not violate constitutional provisions.

Holding and Implications

The court’s final decision was to deny the petitioner’s writ of mandate, thereby upholding the constitutionality of the residency-based tuition fee classification.

This decision directly affects the parties by affirming the respondent’s authority to require nonresident students to pay tuition fees. The opinion does not establish new precedent beyond confirming the reasonableness of residency classifications for university admissions and fees under the California Constitution.

Show full summary ...

ERNESTINE BRYAN, Petitioner, v. THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OFCALIFORNIA (a Corporation), Respondent.

WILBUR, J.

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandate to compel the respondent to admit her to the University of California. The respondent is willing to admit her as a student providing she will pay the fee fixed by the respondent for nonresidents, amounting to seventy-five dollars a semester. This refusal of the respondent is in accordance with section 1394 1/2 of the Political Code and rules of the state board of regents adopted in accordance therewith. This section, adopted in 1921, reads as follows:

"An admission fee and rate of tuition fixed by the board of regents must be required of each nonresident student. The board of regents shall cause to be computed the actual cost to the university of maintaining one student in each of the respective courses of the several colleges for the period of one year. Each nonresident student shall be required to pay as the rate of tuition the sum provided for by the above computation for the particular course such student is following; provided, that the maximum sum to be paid shall not exceed five hundred dollars; and provided, further, that such sum may be remitted in whole or in part in the case of graduate students in other than professional colleges and schools. A nonresident student as used in this section shall mean any person who has not for more than one year immediately preceding his entrance into the university been a bona fide resident of the state of California." (Stats. 1921, p. 541.)

It is contended that this legislation and the rule of the board of regents adopted in pursuance thereof violates article I, sections 11 and 21, of the constitution of the state of California. These sections prohibit the granting of privileges or immunities to any citizen or class of citizens "which upon the same terms shall not be granted to all citizens." It is pointed out that all persons residing within the state of California except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls are citizens (Pol. Code, sec. 51), and that, therefore, the petitioner is a citizen within the meaning of article I, section 21, of the state constitution. It is conceded that the legislature has power to enact laws classifying citizens where the classification is not unreasonable and arbitrary and that legislation with reference to such classification is constitutional, but it is contended that there is no reasonable basis for extending the rights of the university to all other citizens and denying such privileges to citizens who have not resided within the state for one year. It must be conceded that it is permissible to classify citizens who have resided within the state one year for certain purposes, notably, that of voting. Section 50 of the Political Code provides: "The people, as a political body, consist: 1. Of citizens who are electors; 2. Of citizens not electors." The constitution itself makes this classification (art. II, sec. 1). Now, one reason for denying a citizen of the state the right to vote in the state until he has been a resident of the state one year is that his residence for one year within the state is evidence of his bona fide intent to remain in the state permanently, and for the same reason the requirement that the voter shall reside ninety days in the county and thirty days in the election precinct in which he seeks to vote, is also considered necessary. Only such persons are eligible to become public officers (Pol. Code, sec. 58).

There seems to be no good reason for holding that the legislature may not make a similar classification in fixing the privilege for attendance upon the state university. It would be impossible for the state university to provide educational opportunities for all the citizens of the state. These facilities are necessarily limited. It is stated by the respondent that the number of scholars at the university have increased from 1,783 in 1900 to 10,599 in 1920. The expenditures for the next current biennial period are estimated at $9,000,000, almost equal to the entire annual expenditures of the United States government during the first years of its existence ($10,000,000). This expenditure is a heavy burden upon the taxpayers of the state. Taxes are payable annually and the requirement that a student shall maintain a residence in the state of California during one taxation period as an evidence of the bona fides of his intention to remain a permanent resident of the state and that he is not temporarily residing within the state for the mere purpose of securing the advantages of the university, cannot be held to be an unreasonable exercise of discretion by the legislature or by the respondent. It follows that the exclusion of the petitioner does not violate her constitutional rights.

Petition denied.

Shaw, C. J., Shurtleff, J., Lawlor, J., and Lennon, J., concurred.