Foss v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents
| Decision Date | 07 November 2019 |
| Docket Number | No. 1 CA-CV 18-0781,1 CA-CV 18-0781 |
| Parties | MIKAYLA FOSS, et al., Plaintiffs/Appellants, v. ARIZONA BOARD OF REGENTS, Defendant/Appellee. |
| Court | Arizona Court of Appeals |
NOTICE: NOT FOR OFFICIAL PUBLICATION. UNDER ARIZONA RULE OF THE SUPREME COURT 111(c), THIS DECISION IS NOT PRECEDENTIAL AND MAY BE CITED ONLY AS AUTHORIZED BY RULE.
Appeal from the Superior Court in Maricopa County
The Honorable Teresa A. Sanders, Judge
AFFIRMED
The Entrekin Law Firm, Phoenix
By B. Lance Entrekin
Tucker & Miller, LLLP, Phoenix
By Daniel P. J. Miller
Osborn Maledon, PA, Phoenix
By Lynne C. Adams, Mary R. O'Grady, Emma Cone-Roddy
Counsel for Defendant/Appellee
MEMORANDUM DECISIONJudge David D. Weinzweig delivered the decision of the Court, in which Presiding Judge Randall M. Howe and Chief Judge Peter B. Swann joined.
¶1 Arizona law directs that Arizona residents are entitled to reduced in-state tuition rates at Arizona's public universities. Meanwhile, federal immigration law prohibits undocumented aliens from receiving in-state tuition benefits unless the same benefits are provided to all United States citizens and nationals. At issue here is whether three non-resident students are entitled to recoup the cash difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition for the 2017-2018 academic year because a discrete group of undocumented aliens received in-state tuition rates to attend Arizona's public universities during that period. The superior court dismissed the lawsuit for failure to state a claim because the non-resident students had no contract or entitlement to receive the reduced tuition rates provided to Arizona residents. We affirm.
¶2 On appeal from a motion to dismiss, this court "assume[s] the truth of [all] well-pled factual allegations and indulge[s] all reasonable inferences therefrom." Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins. Co., 218 Ariz. 417, 419, ¶ 7 (2008).
¶3 The Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) is the governing body for Arizona State University, the University of Arizona and Northern Arizona University. ABOR fixes student tuition rates under Arizona law, which directs that Arizona residents enjoy reduced in-state tuition rates at Arizona's public universities. A.R.S. §§ 15-1626(A)(5), -1802(A). To achieve resident status, a student must meet the requirements set forth in A.R.S. § 15-1802(B), including that "the person is domiciled in this state for one year."
¶4 Plaintiffs Mikayla Foss, Eleanor Wiersma and Abigail Garbarino were students at either Arizona State University or the University of Arizona during the 2017-2018 academic year. They are United States citizens, but not Arizona residents, and thus paid out-of-state tuition.
¶5 To understand their claims, we turn to the federal Illegal Immigration Reform Act and Immigrant Responsibility Act and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program.
¶6 In 1996, the federal government passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. Pub. L. No. 104-208, 110 Stat. 3009 (1996). As relevant here, the Act provides that "an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State . . . for any postsecondary education benefit 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. § 1623 ("Section 1623").
¶7 Section 1623's prohibition was incorporated into Arizona law at A.R.S. § 15-1803(B), which directs that "a person who was not a citizen or legal resident of the United States or who is without lawful immigration status is not entitled to classification as an in-state student pursuant to § 15-1802."
¶8 In 2012, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security recognized a Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals ("DACA") program, exercising its prosecutorial discretion to defer deportation of certain undocumented aliens who entered the country as children.
¶9 Beginning in 2013, Arizona courts were asked to consider whether DACA recipients who otherwise met Arizona's statutory residency requirements could receive in-state tuition rates at Arizona's public universities. In 2015, a superior court held that DACA recipients were "lawfully present" and thus eligible for in-state tuition. Based on that decision, ABOR formally recognized that DACA students "were able to establish in-state residency for tuition purposes at Arizona's public universities." But in June 2017, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the superior court. State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd., 242 Ariz. 325 (App. 2017). The Arizona Supreme Court then agreed to hear the case. ABOR decided it would, in the interim, keep offering in-state tuition to DACA members who qualified as Arizona residents.
¶10 In May 2018, the Arizona Supreme Court reached the same conclusion as this court, holding that DACA students were not "lawfully present" under Section 1623, and therefore could not receive in-state tuition unless made available to all non-resident students with U.S. citizenship. State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa Cty. Cmty. Coll. Dist., 243 Ariz. 539, 542, ¶ 16 (2018) ("MCCCD"). ABOR immediately complied and terminated in-state tuition for DACA members.
¶11 This lawsuit followed. Plaintiffs assert claims for declaratory judgment, breach of contract and unjust enrichment; each claim turns on the theory that ABOR overcharged the non-resident students for tuition under Section 1623. Plaintiffs' complaint alleges an "entitlement to in[-]state tuition" for the 2017-2018 academic year when ABOR charged in-state tuition to DACA members who satisfied Arizona's residency requirements.
¶12 ABOR moved to dismiss, arguing several grounds, including that Plaintiffs' claims all hinge on a federal statute (Section 1623) that confers no rights or entitlement upon Plaintiffs to receive in-state tuition, but instead prohibits undocumented aliens from receiving in-state tuition. The court heard oral argument and asked Plaintiffs' counsel if the issue was "just whether or not [Section 1623] gives you a cause of action," which Plaintiffs' counsel said was "primarily true."
¶13 The superior court then dismissed Plaintiffs' complaint for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure. The court interpreted Section 1623 as restricting the scope of permissible tuition benefits for undocumented aliens. It held the statute "does not provide an entitlement to [in-state tuition for all] U.S. citizens, nor does it prohibit educational institutions from classifying non-resident students as such, or from collecting non-resident tuition from them." Because Plaintiffs' claims were "based solely upon a violation of [this federal] statute," the court held that Plaintiffs failed to state a claim.
¶14 Plaintiffs timely appealed and we have jurisdiction pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 12-120.21(A)(1) and -2101(A)(1).
¶15 We review de novo the superior court's ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Coleman v. City of Mesa, 230 Ariz. 352, 355-56, ¶ 7 (2012). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss should be granted if the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On appeal, this court "must assume the truth of all of the complaint's material allegations [and] accord the plaintiffs the benefit of all inferences the complaint can reasonably support," Gatecliff v. Great Republic Life Ins. Co., 154 Ariz. 502, 508 (App. 1987), but we do not accept as true "allegations consisting of conclusions of law, inferences or deductions that are not necessarily implied by well-pleaded facts, unreasonable inferences or unsupported conclusions from such facts, or legal conclusions alleged as facts," Jeter v. Mayo Clinic Ariz., 211 Ariz. 386, 389, ¶ 4 (App. 2005).
¶16 Plaintiffs argue their complaint stated a Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act ("UDJA") claim upon which relief could be granted. A.R.S. § 12-1832. We disagree.
¶17 The UDJA generally provides that any person whose "rights, status, or other legal relations are affected by statute" may seek a judicial determination about the construction or validity of the statute. A.R.S. § 12-1832. On a motion to dismiss, Plaintiffs must allege sufficient facts to establish both (1) a protectible interest and (2) a justiciable controversy over the denial of that interest. Ariz. Soc'y of Pathologists v. Ariz. Health Care Cost Containment Sys. Admin., 201 Ariz. 553, 557, ¶ 19 (App. 2002). The "complaint must assert a legal relationship, status or right in which the party has a definite interest and an assertion of the denial of it by the other party." Land Dep't v. O'Toole, 154 Ariz. 43, 47 (App. 1987). Arizona courts have determined that a statute's incidental beneficiaries have no declaratory judgment claim to enforce its terms. Lancaster v. Ariz. Bd. of Regents, 143 Ariz. 451, 457 (App. 1984) ().
¶18 Plaintiffs did not allege sufficient facts in their complaint to establish a protectible interest and justiciable controversy. Although Plaintiffs allege that non-resident students "are entitled to in[-]state tuition rates for the 2017-18 school year under [Section 1623]," the statute's actual words neither create nor confer any entitlement upon them. "[T]he words of a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning unless it appears from the context or otherwise that a different meaning is intended." MCCCD, 243 Ariz. at 541.
¶19 Section 1623 never mentions, much less creates and confers, any enforceable private right for individual, non-resident students. The Tenth Circuit captured the point in Day v. Bond, 500 F.3d 1127, 1139 (10th Cir. 2007), when it explained: "...
To continue reading
Request your trial