Young Conservatives of Tex. Found. v. Univ. of N. Tex.

• Decision Date: 28 October 2021
• Docket Number: CIVIL NO. 4:20-CV-973-SDJ
• Citation: 569 F.Supp.3d 484
• Parties: YOUNG CONSERVATIVES OF TEXAS FOUNDATION v. The UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS, et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas

569 F.Supp.3d 484

YOUNG CONSERVATIVES OF TEXAS FOUNDATION

v.The UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS, et al.

CIVIL NO. 4:20-CV-973-SDJ

United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Sherman Division.

Signed October 28, 2021

Robert Earl Henneke, Chad Phillip Ennis, Chance Dean Weldon, Christian Gerald Townsend, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Joseph Aaron Barnes, Sr., Office of the Attorney General of Texas, Austin, TX, for Young Conservatives of Texas Foundation.

Paige Carlysa Duggins-Clay, Husch Blackwell LLP, Austin, TX, Sandy Dian Hellums, Husch Blackwell LLP, William Andrew Taylor, Andy Taylor & Associates, PC, Houston, TX, for The University of North Texas, The University of North Texas System, Neal Smatresk, Shannon Goodman.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

SEAN D. JORDAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case challenges the enforceability of a Texas law that allegedly compels United States citizens to pay a higher rate of college tuition than some aliens not lawfully present in the country. Plaintiff Young Conservatives of Texas Foundation ("Young Conservatives") filed suit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that a certain provision of the Texas Education Code conflicts with, and is therefore preempted by, federal law. The suit is against the University of North Texas; the University of North Texas System; Neal Smatresk, in his official capacity as the University's president; and Shannon Goodman, in his official capacity as the University's Vice President for Enrollment (collectively, "UNT").

UNT moves to dismiss the case on the grounds that Young Conservatives lacks standing and has no cause of action to bring its preemption claim. Neither argument carries the day. Young Conservatives has both associational standing to bring this preemption challenge on behalf of its student members and a cause of action sounding in equity under Ex parte Young , 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). The motion to dismiss, (Dkt. #7), is therefore DENIED .

I. BACKGROUND

Taken together, Sections 54.051 and 54.052 of the Texas Education Code permit persons who meet certain residency requirements and are enrolled in a state-operated institution of higher education to qualify as Texas "residents" for the purpose of receiving in-state tuition rates. TEX. EDUC. CODE §§ 54.051(c), 54.052. Anyone who fails to meet those residency requirements is not entitled to receive in-state tuition—regardless of whether that person is a United States citizen—and must pay higher tuition rates. Id. §§ 54.051(d), 54.052. In some situations, this statutory scheme provides that aliens who are unlawfully in the country may pay in-state-tuition rates while United States citizens from states other than Texas may not.

Enter Section 1623(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 ("IIRIRA"), a federal statute. Section 1623(a) 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 (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

8 U.S.C. § 1623(a).

Asserting that these state and federal statutes conflict with one another, Young Conservatives sued UNT on behalf of certain of its members, each of whom is a United States citizen from a state other than Texas and a student at the University. Young Conservatives seeks a declaration that Section 1623(a) of IIRIRA preempts Section 54.051(d) of the Texas Education Code and an injunction prohibiting UNT officials from applying the tuition rates set forth in Section 54.051(d). (Dkt. #1-5). Such relief is warranted, Young Conservatives says, because the university-official defendants "have acted and continue to act without legal authority" by imposing higher tuition rates on its student members based on the preempted state law. (Dkt. #1-5 ¶ 32).

UNT now moves to dismiss the case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). (Dkt. #7). It argues that Young Conservatives has neither standing nor a cause of action to claim that Section 54.051(d) of the Texas Education Code is preempted. (Dkt. #7, #29). Young Conservatives disagrees with both points and contends that it has met the threshold requirements to invoke judicial power. (Dkt. #28, #31).

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Because motions to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) are distinct and involve different standards, the Court sets forth each standard before addressing UNT's arguments.

A. Legal Standard for Rule 12(b)(1) Motions

The power of federal courts is circumscribed by the limits set forth in Article III of the Constitution. Valley Forge Christian Coll. v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc. , 454 U.S. 464, 471, 102 S.Ct. 752, 70 L.Ed.2d 700 (1982). Article III legitimizes the use of judicial power "to declare the rights of individuals and to measure the authority of governments" in the resolution of "cases" and "controversies." Id. For that reason, a federal court must dismiss a case for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction if the court lacks "the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate the case." Home Builders Ass'n of Miss., Inc. v. City of Madison , 143 F.3d 1006, 1010 (5th Cir. 1998) (quotation omitted).

A Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction can mount either a facial or a factual challenge. Paterson v. Weinberger , 644 F.2d 521, 523 (5th Cir. 1981). When, like here, a party makes a Rule 12(b)(1) motion without presenting any evidence, the challenge to subject-matter jurisdiction is facial. Id. In assessing such a challenge, the court looks only at the sufficiency of the allegations in the complaint and assumes them to be true. Id. If the allegations are sufficient to establish jurisdiction, the complaint stands. Id. Because the "burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction," the "plaintiff constantly bears the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist." Ramming v. United States , 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam).

B. Legal Standard for Rule 12(b)(6) Motions

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a court may dismiss a complaint for "failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must provide "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). The Supreme Court has instructed that plausibility means "more than a sheer possibility," but not necessarily a probability. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).

When assessing a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), the facts pleaded are entitled to a presumption of truth, but legal conclusions that lack factual support are not entitled to the same presumption. Id. To determine whether the plaintiff has pleaded enough to "nudge[ ] [its] claims ... across the line from conceivable to plausible," a court draws on its own common sense and judicial experience. Id. at 679–80, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Twombly , 550 U.S. at 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ). This threshold is surpassed when "a plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Id. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

III. DISCUSSION

UNT makes two principal arguments in its dismissal motion. First, it asserts that Young Conservatives lacks Article III standing to bring its preemption challenge to Section 54.051(d). Second, UNT contends that this suit must be dismissed because Young Conservatives does not have a cause of action for its preemption claim. The Court addresses each in turn.

A. Constitutional Standing

The first question that the Court must answer is whether Young Conservatives has standing to claim that Section 54.051(d) of the Texas Education Code is preempted by federal law. See Davis v. Fed. Election Comm'n , 554 U.S. 724, 732–33, 128 S.Ct. 2759, 171 L.Ed.2d 737 (2008) (describing constitutional standing as a threshold jurisdictional inquiry). Constitutional standing, which is a plaintiff's personal stake in the outcome of the case, is an "essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III." Id. at 733, 128 S.Ct. 2759 (quotation omitted). For a litigant to have standing, it usually must show "(1) an injury in fact, (2) a sufficient causal connection between the injury and the conduct complained of, and (3) a likelihood that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision." Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus , 573 U.S. 149, 157–58, 134 S.Ct. 2334, 189 L.Ed.2d 246 (2014) (cleaned up). When these requirements are met, the plaintiff may sue on its own behalf. See Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman , 455 U.S. 363, 378–79, 102 S.Ct. 1114, 71 L.Ed.2d 214 (1982).

An association, like Young Conservatives, may also "have standing to assert the claims of its members even where it has suffered no injury from the challenged activity."

Texas Ent. Ass'n, Inc. injury is not caused by the challengedv. Hegar , 10 F.4th 495, 504 (5th Cir. 2021) (alteration and quotation omitted). To establish associational standing, the association must show that (1) "its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right"; (2) "the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose"; and (3) "neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit." Ass'n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Texas Med. Bd. , 627 F.3d 547, 550 (5th Cir. 2010) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. St. Apple Adver. Comm'n , 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977) ). In this case, only the first prong...