Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealdiscriminationvisarespondentliens
appealdiscriminationvisarespondentliens

Related Cases

Zafar v. U.S. Attorney Gen.
View Case »
Walters v. McMahen
View Case »
Ahmed v. Department of Homeland Security
View Case »
Alemu v. Gonzales
View Case »
Rivas v. AG
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Toll v. Moreno

Facts

Respondents, nonimmigrant G-4 aliens, were denied in-state status by petitioner state university because petitioner's policy excluded all domiciled nonimmigrant G-4 aliens from attaining in-state status. The district court found that petitioner's policy violated the Supremacy Clause, and the appellate court affirmed. Petitioner challenged the appellate court's holding on the basis that its policy was justified because respondents' parents' salaries from international banks were exempt from state taxation under state law.

Respondents, nonimmigrant G-4 aliens, were denied in-state status by petitioner state university because petitioner's policy excluded all domiciled nonimmigrant G-4 aliens from attaining in-state status. The district court found that petitioner's policy violated the Supremacy Clause, and the appellate court affirmed. Petitioner challenged the appellate court's holding on the basis that its policy was justified because respondents' parents' salaries from international banks were exempt from state taxation under state law.

Issue

Whether the University's in-state policy is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, insofar as the policy categorically denies in-state status to domiciled nonimmigrant aliens who hold G-4 visas.

Whether the University's in-state policy is invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution, insofar as the policy categorically denies in-state status to domiciled nonimmigrant aliens who hold G-4 visas.

Rule

The federal government has the authority to regulate the status of aliens, and Congress has specifically allowed nonimmigrant aliens with G-4 visas to acquire domicile.

The federal government has the authority to regulate the status of aliens, and Congress has specifically allowed nonimmigrant aliens with G-4 visas to acquire domicile.

Analysis

The court applied the rule by determining that the denial of in-state status to G-4 aliens was an impermissible basis for discrimination, as it imposed an ancillary burden not contemplated by Congress. The court emphasized that the federal government admitted G-4 aliens into the country on terms that permitted them to establish domicile in the United States.

The court applied the rule by determining that the denial of in-state status to G-4 aliens was an impermissible basis for discrimination, as it imposed an ancillary burden not contemplated by Congress. The court emphasized that the federal government admitted G-4 aliens into the country on terms that permitted them to establish domicile in the United States.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding that the University of Maryland's in-state policy, as applied to G-4 aliens and their dependents, violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

The court affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding that the University of Maryland's in-state policy, as applied to G-4 aliens and their dependents, violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

Who won?

Respondents prevailed in the case because the court found that the university's policy violated the Supremacy Clause by discriminating against G-4 aliens who were permitted by federal law to establish domicile.

Respondents prevailed in the case because the court found that the university's policy violated the Supremacy Clause by discriminating against G-4 aliens who were permitted by federal law to establish domicile.

You must be