Young Conservatives of Tex. Found. v. Univ. of N. Tex.
| Decision Date | 08 April 2022 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL NO. 4:20-CV-973-SDJ |
| Parties | YOUNG CONSERVATIVES OF TEXAS FOUNDATION v. The UNIVERSITY OF NORTH TEXAS, et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Texas |
Robert Earl Henneke, Chance Dean Weldon, Christian Gerald Townsend, Texas Public Policy Foundation, Austin, TX, Chad Phillip Ennis, Texas Secretary of State, Austin, TX, 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, Amy Warr, Melanie D. Plowman, Wallace B. Jefferson, Alexander DuBose & Jefferson LLP, Austin, TX, Sandy Dian Hellums, Husch Blackwell LLP, Houston, TX, William Andrew Taylor, Andy Taylor & Associates, PC, Houston, TX, for The University of North Texas.
Paige Carlysa Duggins-Clay, Husch Blackwell LLP, Austin, TX, Sandy Dian Hellums, Husch Blackwell LLP, Houston, TX, William Andrew Taylor, Andy Taylor & Associates, PC, Houston, TX, for The University of North Texas System.
Paige Carlysa Duggins-Clay, Husch Blackwell LLP, Austin, TX, Wallace B. Jefferson, Alexander DuBose & Jefferson LLP, Austin, TX, Sandy Dian Hellums, Husch Blackwell LLP, Houston, TX, William Andrew Taylor, Andy Taylor & Associates, PC, Houston, TX, for Neal Smatresk, Shannon Goodman.
A Texas statute provides that United States citizens who do not meet state residency requirements must pay a higher rate of college tuition than aliens not lawfully present in the country who satisfy such state residency requirements. The question before the Court is whether the Texas statute is preempted by federal law mandating that, if a university provides an educational benefit based on residence to an alien who lacks lawful immigration status, then that university must provide the same benefit to a United States citizen regardless of the citizen's residency. The answer is yes, the Texas statute is preempted.
Plaintiff Young Conservatives of Texas Foundation ("Young Conservatives") seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, claiming that the application of a certain provision of the Texas Education Code violates 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"). Both sides have moved for summary judgment.
The federal law at issue sets forth a straightforward rule: an alien unlawfully present in this country shall not be eligible based on residence within a State for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen of this country is eligible for that benefit regardless of whether the citizen is such a resident. 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a). Meanwhile, Texas law makes unlawfully present aliens who meet certain residency requirements eligible for in-state tuition while denying that benefit to United States citizens who do not meet those residency requirements and requiring such citizens to pay higher tuition rates. TEX. EDUC. CODE §§ 54.051(c), 54.051(d), 54.052. Because Texas's nonresident tuition scheme directly conflicts with Congress's express prohibition on providing eligibility for postsecondary education benefits, it is preempted and therefore unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause.
For that reason, and those that follow, Young Conservatives is entitled to summary judgment on its preemption claim against Smatresk and Goodman, the university officials. But due to the nature of the cause of action that Young Conservatives relies on—the equitable Ex parte Young action—its preemption claim against the University of North Texas and the University of North Texas System fails as a matter of law. Accordingly, Young Conservatives’ summary-judgment motion, (Dkt. #6), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part , and UNT's cross-motion for summary judgment, (Dkt. #52), is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part .
The material facts, as opposed to the legal conclusions to draw from those facts, are undisputed. 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. This statutory scheme makes aliens who are unlawfully in the country eligible for in-state tuition rates while some United States citizens from States other than Texas are not.
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 is, or was, a student at the University. Young Conservatives has moved for summary judgment, (Dkt. #6), asserting that it has established as a matter of law that Section 1623(a) of IIRIRA preempts Section 54.051(d) of the Texas Education Code. For a remedy, Young Conservatives seeks a permanent injunction prohibiting the UNT officials from applying the tuition rates set forth in Section 54.051(d) at the University.
UNT has responded and filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. (Dkt. #52). It argues that Young Conservatives has failed to establish standing to pursue its claim on behalf of its members and has not sued the proper parties under Ex parte Young , 209 U.S. 123, 28 S.Ct. 441, 52 L.Ed. 714 (1908). UNT also contends that the Court should not read IIRIRA to preempt the challenged state law and that Young Conservatives has failed to show that a permanent injunction is warranted. On these grounds, UNT urges the Court to grant summary judgment in its favor and deny Young Conservatives’ claims.
"Summary judgment is appropriate only when ‘the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’ " Shepherd v. City of Shreveport , 920 F.3d 278, 282–83 (5th Cir. 2019) (quoting FED. R. CIV. P. 56(a) ). If the moving party presents a motion for summary judgment that is properly supported by evidence, "the burden shifts to the nonmoving party to show with ‘significant probative evidence’ that there exists a genuine issue of material fact." Hamilton v. Segue Software Inc. , 232 F.3d 473, 477 (5th Cir. 2000) (quoting Conkling v. Turner , 18 F.3d 1285, 1295 (5th Cir. 1994) ).
Because Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 requires that there be no "genuine issue of material fact" to succeed on a motion for summary judgment, "the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute" is insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (first emphasis omitted). A fact is "material" when, under the relevant substantive law, its resolution might govern the outcome of the suit.
Id. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505. "An issue is ‘genuine’ if the evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to return a verdict for the nonmoving party." Hamilton , 232 F.3d at 476 (citing Anderson , 477 U.S. at 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505 ).
"Courts consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, yet the nonmovant may not rely on mere allegations in the pleading; rather, the nonmovant must respond to the motion for summary judgment by setting forth particular facts indicating that there is a genuine issue for trial." Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Compania Mexicana de Aviacion, S.A. de C.V. , 199 F.3d 796, 798 (5th Cir. 2000). If, when considering the entire record, no rational jury could find for the nonmoving party, the movant is entitled to summary judgment. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) (citing First Nat'l Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Serv. Co. , 391 U.S. 253, 280, 88 S.Ct. 1575, 20 L.Ed.2d 569 (1968) ).
Young Conservatives argues that Section 54.051(d) of the Texas Education Code is preempted by Section 1623(a) of IIRIRA and is therefore unenforceable under the Constitution. To remedy the asserted violation, Young Conservatives’ summary-judgment motion requests that the Court enter a permanent injunction prohibiting the application of Section 54.051(d) to United States citizens who attend UNT.
A party seeking a permanent injunction must establish "(1) success on the merits; (2) that a failure to grant the injunction will result in irreparable injury; (3) that said injury outweighs any damage that the injunction will cause the opposing party; and (4) that the injunction will not disserve the public interest." VRC LLC v. City of Dallas , 460 F.3d 607, 611 (5th Cir. 2006). But in an express preemption case, a finding of success on the merits "carries with it a determination that the other three requirements have been satisfied." Id. (quotation omitted). Because the plain text of the relevant statutes confirms that IIRIRA preempts Section 54.051(d), and because the other requirements...
To continue reading
Request your trial