Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota

• Citation: 507 F.2d 775
• Decision Date: 28 April 1975
• Docket Number: No. 74-1184,74-1184
• Parties: Gail PROSTROLLO et al., Appellees, v. The UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA et al., Appellants.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (8th Circuit)

Page 775

507 F.2d 775

31 A.L.R.Fed. 802

Gail PROSTROLLO et al., Appellees, v. The UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH DAKOTA et al., Appellants.

No. 74-1184.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Oct. 14, 1974.

Decided Dec. 6, 1974, Rehearing Denied Dec. 18, 1974,

Certiorari Denied April28, 1975, See 95 S.Ct. 1687.

Carleton R. Hoy, Davenport, Evans, Hurwitz & Smith, Sioux Falls, S.D., for appellants.

Michael B. Crew, Crew & Crew, Vermillion, S.D., for appellees.

Before VOGEL, Senior Circuit Judge, and LAY and STEPHENSON, Circuit judges.

LAY, Circuit Judge.

The University of South Dakota, Dr. Richard Bowen, its President, A. L. Schnell, Director of Resident Services The challenged regulation provides:

and the Board of Regents of the State of South Dakota appeal from a decision of the district court declaring certain University housing regulations unconstitutional. The named plaintiffs, Gail Prostrollo and Lynn Severson, are students at the University of South Dakota. They brought this suit on behalf of themselves and other students similarly situated to challenge a regulation which requires all single freshman and sophomore students to live in University residence halls. They contend that enforcement of this rule encroaches upon their right of privacy and denies them equal protection of the laws. The district court found that the primary purpose of the regulation was to ensure housing income sufficient to pay off the revenue bonds which had been issued to finance the construction of the dormitories. It concluded that the regulation was unconstitutional, since it established an arbitrary and unreasonable classification which had no rational relationship to this purpose and therefore denied petitioners equal protection of the laws. Prostrollo v. University of South Dakota, 369 F.Supp. 778 (D.S.D.1974). We find the regulation constitutional and reverse and remand the case with directions to enter judgment for the defendants. ¹

All single freshman and sophomore students are required to live in university residence halls. Exceptions to this policy must be approved by the Director of Resident Services prior to the beginning of the semester.

School officials offered several justifications for this parietal rule. ² Dr. Richard L. Bowen, the University president, said that the rule had at least two purposes. First, he stated, it was intended to provide a standard level of occupancy to ensure repayment of the government bonds which provided capital for the dormitory construction. ³ Second, he said, it was meant to ensure that younger students who must of necessity live away from home while attending the University would avail themselves of the learning experience in self-government The facilities for studying are more accessible to those people who live on campus. It's easier for them to get to the library, for example; the atmosphere on campus is more conducive to study. It's encouraged . . .. There are control factors which eliminate the amount of confusion and noise. The emphasis on campus is academic . . . where off campus it's frequently not.

group discipline, and community living that dorm life provides, as well as the increased opportunity for enriching relationships with the staff and other students. Aaron Schnell, Director of Resident Services, emphasized the educational benefits of living on campus, such as the availability of films and discussion forums. Dr. Richard Gibb, the Commissioner of Higher Education for the South Dakota Board of Regents, freely admitted the financial reasons for the rule, but throughout his testimony, he also emphasized the various educational advantages of dormitory living. Michael Easton, the Dirctor of Student Services, observed:

The overall evidence demonstrates that these University officials believe that dormitory living provides an educational atmosphere with assists younger students, as underclassmen, in adjusting to college life. ⁴ The testimony reflects a belief that students who becomr 'established' and well-oriented in their early years are more prone to develop those good study habits which will assist them in their years as upperclassmen. Despite this testimony, the We need not decide whether the court's finding regarding the primary purpose of the rule is clearly erroneous. ⁶ The district court's error, we believe, was in deciding the reasonableness of the classification on the basis of a single 'primary' purpose in the face of evidence revealing multiple purposes. This is a misapplication of the standards governing the equal protection clause. In discussing equal protection principles, the Supreme Court recently observed:

district court in its original opinion, as well as in a supplemental opinion filed under a Rule 60(b) proceeding, ⁵ emphasized its factual conclusion that the primary purpose of the parietal rule was to defray the costs of the revenue bonds. It found the reasons relating to educational values expressed by school officials to be 'unconvincing and unsupported by the evidence.' It was on the basis of the finding of this primary purpose that the court concluded that the classification had no rational connection to the purpose of the regulation and therefore denied plaintiffs equal protection of the law. Cf. Mollere v. Southeastern Louisiana College, 304 F.Supp. 826 (E.D.La.1969).

Our decisions do not authorize courts to pick and choose among legitimate legislative aims to determine which is primary and which subordinate. Rather, legislative solutions must be respected if the 'distinctions drawn have some basis in practical experience,' South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 331, 86 S.Ct. 803, 820, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 (1966), or if some legitimate state interest is advanced, Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. (471), at 486 (90 S.Ct. 1153, at 1162, 25 L.Ed.2d 491). So long as the state purpose upholding a statutory class is legitimate and nonillusory, its lack of primacy is not disqualifying.

. . . The search for legislative purpose is often elusive enough, Palmer v. Thompson, 403 U.S. 217, 91 S.Ct. 1940, 29 L.Ed.2d 438 (1971), without a requirement that primacy be ascertained. Legislation is frequently multi-purposed: the removal of even a 'subordinate' purpose may shift altogether the consensus of legislative judgment supporting the statute. Permitting nullification of statutory classifications based rationally on a nonprimary legislative purpose would allow courts to peruse legislative proceedings for subtle emphases supporting subjective impressions and preferences. The Equal Protection Clause does not countenance such speculative probing into the purposes of a coordinate branch. We have supplied no imaginary basis or purpose for this statutory scheme, but we likewise refuse to discard a clear and legitimate purpose because the court below perceived another to be primary.

McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 276-277, 93 S.Ct. 1055, 1062, 35 L.Ed.2d 282 (1973).

The district court concluded that the challenged classification (freshmen and When no suspect classification is involved or fundamental right infringed, any 'rational basis' may justify classifications which have been made. See Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974); McGinnis v. Royster, 410 U.S. 263, 93 S.Ct. 2055, 35 L.Ed.2d 282 (1973); Railway Express Agency v. New York 336 U.S. 106, 69 S.Ct. 463, 93 L.Ed. 533 (1949) ('any conceivable purpose'); Kotch v. Board of River Pilot Commissioners, 330 U.S. 552, 67 S.Ct. 910, 91 L.Ed. 1093 (1974). We find there exists a rational connection between one of the permissible purposes for the regulation and the classification made. ⁷

sophomores) had no rational connection to the purpose of paying off the bonds. We would agree. However, there is no evidence on the record that the classification in question was ever intended to have any connection with that purpose. In Molerre, supra, relied upon by the district court, where a similar regulation was struck down, the only reason women under the age of 21 and freshman men were required to live in the dormitories was because as a group they approximated the number needed to fill the dormitory vacancies. 304 F.Supp. at 827. To the contrary in the present case the only evidence of why the classification was created was the testimony of University officials that they felt that freshman and sophomore students benefited more directly from the educational values of dormitory living.

Right of Privacy

Although the district court did not pass on the plaintiffs' other contention, i.e., that the regulation violates their right of privacy, this claim is argued on appeal and we must decide it. Aside from equal protection arguments, any law may, of course, be invalid if it clearly violates a fundamental constitutional right. Plaintiffs ruge, however, that it is now recognized that when a legislative classification appears to have been made on a suspect basis or encroaches upon a fundamental right, the state has the burden of demonstrating a 'compelling interest' which required it. We agree that when those circumstances exist closer judicial scrutiny is required under an equal protection challenge. See, e.g., Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U.S. 330, 92 S.Ct. 995, 31 L.Ed.2d 274 (1972); Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 89 S.Ct. 1322, 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1969). That is not the case here, however.

First, we think it obvious that the classification involved was not made on a 'suspect' basis. See Johnson v. Robison, 415 U.S. 361, 375 n. 14, 94 S.Ct. 1160, 39 L.Ed.2d 389 (1974). The class within the regulation is created on the basis of educational attainment. This classification has never been recognized as an inherently irrational basis for differentiating between persons otherwise equal. Cf. Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365, 91 S.Ct. 1848, 29 L.Ed.2d 534 (1971) (alienage); Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 87 S.Ct. 1817, 18 L.Ed.2d 1010 (1967), and McLaughlin v. Florida, 379...