Nyquist v. Mauclet, 76-208

Citation432 U.S. 1,97 S.Ct. 2120,53 L.Ed.2d 63
Decision Date13 June 1977
Docket NumberNo. 76-208,76-208
PartiesEwald B. NYQUIST, Commissioner of Education of New York, et al., Appellants, v. Jean-Marie MAUCLET et al
CourtUnited States Supreme Court
Syllabus

New York statutory provision that bars certain resident aliens from state financial assistance for higher education held to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Pp. 7-12.

(a) State classifications based on alienage are "inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny." Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 372, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 1852, 29 L.Ed.2d 534. P. 7.

(b) The statute discriminates against a class and is subject to strict scrutiny since it is directed at aliens and only aliens are harmed by it even though its bar against them is not absolute in that those who have applied for citizenship or those not qualified to apply who have filed statements of intent may participate in the assistance programs. Graham v. Richardson, supra ; cf. Mathews v. Lucas, 427 U.S. 495, 504-505, n. 11, 96 S.Ct. 2755, 2762, 49 L.Ed.2d 651. Pp. 7-9.

(c) Any incentive through the statute for an alien to become naturalized is not a proper state concern, since control over immigration and naturalization is exclusively a federal function. P. 10.

(d) The naturalization incentive (even if that could be accepted, arguendo, as a justification) or the further justification asserted by appellants, viz., that the financial assistance program is confined to actual or potential voters, thus enhancing the educational level of the electorate, cannot be deemed adequate to support the statute's ban. If the encouragement of naturalization through such programs were adequate, every discrimination against aliens could be similarly justified. And the claimed interest in educating the electorate would not be frustrated by including resident aliens in the assistance program. Pp. 10-12.

D.C., 406 F.Supp. 1233, affirmed.

Judith A. Gordon, New York City, for appellants.

Michael Davidson, Buffalo, N.Y., for appellee Mauclet.

Gary J. Greenberg, New York City, for appellee Rabinovitch.

Mr. Justice BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court.

New York, by statute, bars certain resident aliens from state financial assistance for higher education. N.Y.Educ. Law § 661(3) (McKinney Supp.1976). This litigation presents a constitutional challenge to that statute.

I

New York provides assistance, primarily in three forms, to students pursuing higher education. The first type is the Regents college scholarship. These are awarded to high school graduates on the basis of performance in a competitive examination. §§ 605(1) and 670. Currently, in the usual case, a recipient is entitled to $250 annually for four years of study without regard to need. §§ 670(2) and (3)(b).1 The second and chief form of aid is the tuition assistance award. These are noncompetitive; they are available to both graduate and undergraduate students "enrolled in approved programs and who demonstrate, the ability to complete such courses." §§ 604(1) and 667(1). The amount of the award depends on both tuition and income. The ceiling on assistance was $600, although it has been increased for undergraduates to $1,500. §§ 667(3) and (4). The third form of assistance is the student loan. §§ 680-684. The loan is guaranteed by the State; a borrower meeting certain income restrictions is entitled to favorable interest rates and generally to an interest-free grace period of at least nine months after he completes or terminates his course of study. §§ 680, 682(2) and (3).2

There are several general restrictions on eligibility for participation in any of these programs. § 661. For example, there is a modest durational residency requirement. § 661(5).3 The instant dispute, however, concerns only § 661(3). That subsection provides:

"Citizenship. An applicant (a) must be a citizen of the United States, or (b) must have made application to become a citizen, or (c) if not qualified for citizenship, must submit a statement affirming intent to apply for United States citizenship as soon as he has the qualifications, and must apply as soon as eligible for citizenship, or (d) must be an individual of a class of refugees paroled by the attorney general of the United States under his parole authority pertaining to the admission of aliens to the United States." 4

The statute obviously serves to bar from the assistance programs the participation of all aliens who do not satisfy its terms. Since many aliens, such as those here on student visas, may be precluded by federal law from establishing a permanent residence in this country, see, e. g., 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(F)(i); 22 CFR § 41.45 (1976), the bar of § 661(3) is of practical significance only to resident aliens. The Court has observed of this affected group: "Resident aliens, like citizens, pay taxes, support the economy, serve in the Armed Forces, and contribute in myriad other ways to our society." In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717, 722, 93 S.Ct. 2851, 2855, 37 L.Ed.2d 910 (1973).

II

Appellee Jean-Marie Mauclet is a citizen of France and has lived in New York since April 1969. He has been a permanent resident of the United States since November of that year. He is married to a United States citizen and has a child by that marriage. The child is also a United States citizen. App. 49. Mauclet by affidavit stated: "Although I am presently qualified to apply for citizenship and intend to reside permanently in the United States, I do not wish to relinquish my French citizenship at this time." 5 Id., at 50. He applied for a tuition assistance award to aid in meeting the expenses of his graduate studies at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Because of his refusal to apply for United States citizenship, his application was not processed. Id., at 49-50.

Appellee Alan Rabinovitch is a citizen of Canada. He was admitted to this country in 1964 at the age of nine as a permanent resident alien. He is unmarried and, since his admission, has lived in New York with his parents and a younger sister, all of whom are Canadian citizens. He registered with Selective Service on his 18th birthday. He graduated in 1973 from the New York public school system. Id., at 68, 71. As a result of a commendable performance on the competitive Regents Qualifying Examinations, Rabinovitch was informed that he was qualified for, and entitled to, a Regents college scholarship and tuition assistance. He later was advised, however, that the offer of the scholarship was withdrawn since he intended to retain his Canadian citizenship. Id., at 69, 25. Rabinovitch entered Brooklyn College without financial aid from the State. He states that he "does not intend to become a naturalized American, but . . . does intend to continue to reside in New York." Id., at 65.

Mauclet and Rabinovitch each brought suit in United States District Court (Mauclet in the Western District of New York and Rabinovitch in the Eastern District), alleging that the citizenship bar of § 661(3) was unconstitutional. The same three-judge court was convened for each of the cases. Subsequently, it was ordered that the cases be heard together. App. 45. After cross motions for summary judgment, the District Court in a unanimous opinion ruled in appellees' favor. It held that § 661(3) violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in that the citizenship requirement served to discriminate unconstitutionally against resident aliens.6 406 F.Supp. 1233 (WDNY and EDNY 1976). Its enforcement was enjoined in separate judgments. App. 103, 106.

Appellants the various individuals and corporate entities responsible for administering the State's educational assistance programs challenge this determination.7 We noted probable jurisdiction. 429 U.S. 917, 97 S.Ct. 307, 50 L.Ed.2d 282 (1976).

III

The Court has ruled that classifications by a State that are based on alienage are "inherently suspect and subject to close judicial scrutiny." Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 372, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 1852, 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971). See Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572, 601-602, 96 S.Ct. 2264, 2281, 49 L.Ed.2d 65 (1976); In re Griffiths, 413 U.S., at 721, 93 S.Ct. at 2854, 37 L.Ed.2d 910; Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 642, 93 S.Ct. 2842, 2847, 37 L.Ed.2d 853 (1973). In undertaking this scrutiny, "the governmental interest claimed to justify the discrimination is to be carefully examined in order to determine whether that interest is legitimate and substantial, and inquiry must be made whether the means adopted to achieve the goal are necessary and precisely drawn." Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S., at 605, 96 S.Ct., at 2283. See In re Griffths, 413 U.S., at 721-722, 93 S.Ct., at 2854-2855. Alienage classifications by a State that do not withstand this stringent examination cannot stand.8

Appellants claim that § 661(3) should not be subjected to such strict scrutiny because it does not impose a classifica- tion based on alienage.9 Aliens who have applied for citizenship, or, if not qualified for it, who have filed a statement of intent to apply as soon as they are eligible, are allowed to participate in the assistance programs. Hence, it is said, the statute distinguishes "only within the 'heterogeneous' class of aliens" and "does not distinguish between citizens and aliens vel non." Brief for Appellants 20.10 Only statutory classifications of the latter type, appellants assert, warrant strict scrutiny.

Graham v. Richardson, supra, undermines appellants' position. In that case, the Court considered an Arizona statute that imposed a durational residency requirement for welfare benefits on aliens but not on citizens. Like the New York statute challenged here, the Arizona statute served to discriminate only within the class of aliens: Aliens who met the durational residency requirement were entitled to welfare benefits. The Court nonetheless subjected...

To continue reading

Request your trial
164 cases
  • Rubio v. Superior Court, S.F. 23711
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (California)
    • April 24, 1979
    ...of naturalized citizens. (Statistical Abstract of U.S. (98th ed. 1977) tables 130 & 131, p. 89.9 See, e. g., Nyquist v. Mauclet (1977) 432 U.S. 1, 97 S.Ct. 2120, 53 L.Ed.2d 63 (financial assistance for higher education); Examining Board v. Flores de Otero (1976) 426 U.S. 572, 96 S.Ct. 2264,......
  • Casey v. Lewis, No. 91-16513
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • September 23, 1993
    ...stage, the inmates still failed to demonstrate an actual injury. The inmates rely on a footnote in Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1, 6 n. 7, 97 S.Ct. 2120, 2124 n. 7, 53 L.Ed.2d 63 (1977), to argue that even though no named seropositive plaintiff ever applied for or otherwise expressed an int......
  • Varnum v. Brien
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • April 3, 2009
    ...104 S.Ct. 1879, 1882-83, 80 L.Ed.2d 421, 426 (1984) (foregoing analysis of political power); Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1, 9 n. 11, 97 S.Ct. 2120, 2125 n. 11, 53 L.Ed.2d 63, 71 n. 11 (1977) (jettisoning immutability requirement and scrutinizing classification of resident aliens closely de......
  • Pedersen v. Office of Pers. Mgmt.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Court (Connecticut)
    • July 31, 2012
    ...has held that resident aliens constitute a suspect class despite the ability to opt out of the class voluntarily. See Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1, 9 n.11 (1977). Additionally, one's status as illegitimate may be subject to change and is therefore not a strictly immutable characteristic. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • LEGITIMIZING ILLEGITIMACY IN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.
    • United States
    • Washington University Law Review Vol. 99 No. 6, August 2022
    • August 1, 2022
    ...Court has treated immutability inconsistently in determining suspect and quasi-suspect class status. For example, in Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1, 9 n.11 (1977), the Court treated alienage as a suspect classification subject to strict scrutiny, even though naturalization may transform the......
  • Keeping the Constitution's promise: an argument for greater judicial scrutiny of federal alienage classifications.
    • United States
    • Stanford Law Review Vol. 54 No. 2, November 2001
    • November 1, 2001
    ...413 U.S. 717 (1973) (admission to bar); Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973) (civil service). (9.) See, e.g., Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1 (1977) (state financial aid for higher education); Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976) (Medicare); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (stat......
  • Revitalizing democracy.
    • United States
    • Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 24 No. 1, September 2000
    • September 22, 2000
    ...school); Craig v. Boren, 429 U.S. 190 (1976). (34.) See, e.g., Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968). (35.) See, e.g., Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1, 12 (1977); Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971). (36.) See, e.g., Swarm v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ., 402 U.S. 1 (1971). (37.)......
  • Civil Liberties Voting Patterns in the Burger Court, 1975-78
    • United States
    • Political Research Quarterly No. 34-2, June 1981
    • June 1, 1981
    ...430 U.S. 199 (1977) (sex discrimination); Castenada v. Partida, 430 U.S. 483 (1977) (Discrimination in jury selection); Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1 (1977) (schol-arships for aliens); s v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978) (use of racial considerations in affirmative action programs); Trimble v.......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 provisions
  • MO Register Vol. 40 No. 15. (Pages 919-998)
    • United States
    • Missouri Register
    • January 1, 2015
    ...that the requirement of US Citizenship for private employment seems questionable under the U.S. Supreme Court decision Nyquist vs. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1 (1977). RESPONSE: We disagree. There is no requirement for an individual to obtain licensure as a corporate security advisor for private emp......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT