Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Texas AG Opinion on the Legality of In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students Without Clear Answers
Attorney General Greg Abbot provides the following Legal Conclusion:
f j 1623, if the state statutes provide a "postsecondary education benefit" to an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States on the basis of "residence," within the meaning of the federal statute, "unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit . . . without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident." 8 U.S.C. 5 1623(a) (2006). However, the terms "postsecondary education benefit" and "residence" are not defined in the federal law. In addition, no Texas or federal court has construed these terms or considered the substantive application of the federal law to a statute similar to the Texas statutes. Thus, while a federal or state court in Texas, following the reasoning of an intermediate California state appellate court decision, could find that 8 U.S.C. f j 1623 preempts Education Code sections 54.052(a)(3) and 54.053(3) to the extent ofthe conflict with the federal law, given the paucity of judicial precedent, this office cannot predict with certainty that a court would so find.
The United States Supreme Court has "approved bona fide residency requirements in the field of public education." Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321, 326-27 (1983). Additionally, the Court has recognized "that a State has a legitimate interest in protecting and preserving the quality of its colleges and universities and the right of its own bona fide residents to attend such institutions on a preferential tuition basis." Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441,452-53 (1973). "This 'legitimate interest' permits a 'State [to] establish such reasonable criteria for in-state status as to make virtually certain that students who are not, in fact, bona fide residents of the State, but who have come there solely for educational purposes, cannot take advantage of the in-state rates."' Bynum, 461 U.S. at 327 (quoting Vlandis, 412 U.S. at 453-54). Accordingly, a federal or state court in Texas would likely conclude that Education Code sections 54.052(a)(3) and 54.053(3) do not facially violate the federal Equal Protection Clause because the statutory prerequisites for in-state tuition are reasonable requirements that serve Texas's legitimate or substantial interest in assuring that only bona fide residents that graduate from Texas high schools or receive the diploma equivalent from this state are eligible for in-state The Honorable Rob Eissler - Page 7 (GA-0732) tuition. However, no court has addressed whether a statute similar to the Texas statutes conforms to the mandates of the Equal Protection Clause."
For the full opinion, click here.