Nyquist v. Mauclet

Last updated

Nyquist v. Mauclet
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 22, 1977
Decided June 13, 1977
Full case nameNyquist v. Mauclet
Docket no. 76-208
Citations432 U.S. 1 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Opinion announcement Opinion announcement
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Potter Stewart
Byron White  · Thurgood Marshall
Harry Blackmun  · Lewis F. Powell Jr.
William Rehnquist  · John P. Stevens

Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case where the court ruled on whether state governments have the authority to deny permanent immigrants access to tuition assistance or loans for higher educational institutions. In a five to four decision, the court sided with Mauclet and ruled that such action is considered discriminatory against those with an immigrant status. This case brought forth important questions about whether the denial of education benefits to immigrants could be considered a form of discrimination as well as reaffirmed the federal government's authority over states in cases of immigration law. [1]

Contents

Background

Jean-Marie Mauclet and Alan Rabinovitch both immigrated to the United States and had permanent resident status. [1] Mauclet was a French citizen and Rabinovitch was a Canadian citizen. Because they refused to give up their citizenship from their country of origin, they could not be naturalized. [1] Both were attending college in the state of New York. Mauclet at the University of Buffalo and Rabinovitch at Brooklyn College. [2] Mauclet applied for tuition assistance and was denied access. Rabinovitch received a Regents Scholarship, but it was revoked. [1] This was because of Section 661(3) of the New York Education Law which required three qualifications be met in order to be eligible for tuition assistance and student loans in the State of New York: The applicant must be a citizen, have applied to become a citizen, or intend to apply for citizenship as soon as eligible. [1] Mauclet and Rabinovitch sued the New York Commission of Education through the U.S. District Court. [3] The district court granted the plaintiffs a motion for an injunction. The matter was then appealed to the Supreme Court. [2]

Details of case

Based on the facts of this case, the main issues being called into question is as follows: By denying immigrant access to scholarship funding and student loans for higher education, does the New York Education Law violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause? [3]

The two sides argued their case surrounding these two questions. The state's main arguments were as follows:

  1. By requiring immigrants to be citizens in order to access education benefits, the state was providing an incentive for immigrants to become naturalized. [1]
  2. Because those that could receive education benefits had to be citizens, the state was enhancing the education level of the voting public. [1]
  3. Because immigrants were eligible to apply for citizenship, the state was not discriminating against them by making citizenship status a provision for education assistance. There was a route to access the benefits [3]

Mauclet and Rabinovitch's main arguments were as follows:

  1. The law denies access based on immigration status therefore it is explicitly discriminatory. [4]
  2. States do not have the jurisdiction to create regulations surrounding immigration. That power is granted to the Federal government. [4]
  3. The policy did not specify the education of the voting population as a specific objective during the passage of the law. [4]

Opinion of the Court

Because the case involved a question of the Equal Protection Clause, it was reviewed under a legal standard used by courts called "strict scrutiny". This test is applied to laws that deny or grant additional social resources to a particular identity group. In order to pass the test, a law has to be proven to exist for "government interest." [5] Using this framework, the court ruled in favor of Mauclet and Rabinovitch finding the law did violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. [1]

Justice Blackmun was a strong proponent for reviewing this case under "strict scrutiny" and agreed the New York Education Law did not meet the standard. Notably he stated: "661(3) is directed at aliens and that only aliens are harmed by it. The fact that the statute is not an absolute bar does not mean that it does not discriminate against the class." [2] The court's ruling also discussed the state's lack of jurisdiction in legislating on a matter of immigration (a power reserved for the federal government) and the unjust nature of requiring immigrants to pay taxes without giving them access to the benefits of public assistance programs. They referenced court cases such as Graham v. Richardson 403 U.S. 365 (1971) and Sugarman v. Dougall 413 U.S. 634 (1973) in the ruling. [2]

Dissenting opinions

There were two notable dissenting arguments in this case: Chief Justice Burger and Justice Rehnquist. Chief Justice Burger felt the use of "strict scrutiny" as the standard was improper for this case. In his opinion, he discussed how in a previous ruling immigrants had been denied access to particular occupations, which he viewed as a far more foundational right comparatively. The other justices responded to this opinion by stating that in order for "strict scrutiny" utilized, a fundamental right does not have to be denied. [1] Justice Rehnquist argued the New York law wasn't suspect. In order for this to be the case, the law must discriminate against a marginalized group that is "discrete and insular." Because an immigrant had the ability to change that status through the legalization process, this could not be considered unjust. [1]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Defense of Marriage Act</span> 1996 U.S. federal law, repealed in 2022

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was a United States federal law passed by the 104th United States Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. It banned federal recognition of same-sex marriage by limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman, and it further allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages granted under the laws of other states.

<i>Bernal v. Fainter</i> 1984 United States Supreme Court case

Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 216 (1984), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Equal Protection Clause prohibited the state of Texas from barring noncitizens from applying for commission as a notary public.

The Equal Protection Clause is part of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides "nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It mandates that individuals in similar situations be treated equally by the law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Bhagat Singh Thind</span> Indian American writer and civil rights activist

Bhagat Singh Thind was an Indian diaspora writer and lecturer on spirituality who served in the United States Army during World War I and was involved in a Supreme Court case over the right of Indian people to obtain United States citizenship. He was among a group of men of Indian ancestry who attempted to claim he was White and naturalize under federal naturalization law.

United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the long-standing male-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in a 7–1 decision. Justice Clarence Thomas, whose son was enrolled at the university at the time, recused himself.

Intermediate scrutiny, in U.S. constitutional law, is the second level of deciding issues using judicial review. The other levels are typically referred to as rational basis review and strict scrutiny.

<i>Plyler v. Doe</i> 1982 United States Supreme Court case

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education of undocumented immigrant children in the United States and an independent school district's attempt to charge an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each student to compensate for lost state funding. The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their immigration status must be examined under a rational basis standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial government interest.

In United States constitutional law, a suspect classification is a class or group of persons meeting a series of criteria suggesting they are likely the subject of discrimination. These classes receive closer scrutiny by courts when an Equal Protection claim alleging unconstitutional discrimination is asserted against a law, regulation, or other government action, or sometimes private action. When a law or government action affects a group that falls under a "suspect classification," courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in reviewing the constitutional validity of a law or action.

Permanent Residence Under Color of Law (PRUCOL) is an immigration-related status used under some US federal and state laws for determining eligibility for some public benefits, an example being unemployment benefits. It allows for a broader group of non-citizens to qualify for benefits than just those with green cards. This status is used solely for benefit application purposes and is not recognized as an immigration status by the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). This category was created by the courts and is a public benefits eligibility category. For a person to be residing "under color of law," the USCIS must know of the person’s presence in the U.S., and must provide the person with written assurance that enforcement of deportation is not planned. A person residing under PRUCOL status cannot directly apply for U.S. citizenship or sponsor family members to obtain U.S. Citizenship. A person from any country, who resides in the United States without current legal immigration status including, but not limited to, citizenship, permanent residency, unexpired immigrant visa, is an undocumented person. They are ineligible for most federal public benefits.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Judicial aspects of race in the United States</span>

Legislation seeking to direct relations between racial or ethnic groups in the United States has had several historical phases, developing from the European colonization of the Americas, the triangular slave trade, and the American Indian Wars. The 1776 Declaration of Independence included the statement that "all men are created equal", which has ultimately inspired actions and legislation against slavery and racial discrimination. Such actions have led to passage of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.

Legal aid in the United States is the provision of assistance to people who are unable to afford legal representation and access to the court system in the United States. In the US, legal aid provisions are different for criminal law and civil law. Criminal legal aid with legal representation is guaranteed to defendants under criminal prosecution who cannot afford to hire an attorney. Civil legal aid is not guaranteed under federal law, but is provided by a variety of public interest law firms and community legal clinics for free or at reduced cost. Other forms of civil legal aid are available through federally-funded legal services, pro bono lawyers, and private volunteers.

Under the public charge rule, immigrants to the United States classified as Likely or Liable to become a Public Charge may be denied visas or permission to enter the country due to their disabilities or lack of economic resources. The term was introduced in the Immigration Act of 1882. The restriction has remained a major cause for denial of visas and lawful permanent residency ever since; in 1992, about half of those denied immigrant and non-immigrant visas for substantive reasons were denied due to the public charge rule. However, the administrative definition of "public charge" has been subject to major changes, notably in 1999 and 2019.

California's Assembly Bill 540 was signed into law by Governor Gray Davis on October 12, 2001, allowing access to in-state tuition rates for undocumented and other eligible students at California's public colleges and universities. The law allows students who attended high school in California, among other eligibility requirements, to pay in-state tuition fees instead of out-of-state tuition at California's public institutions of higher education, including the University of California, California State University, and California Community Colleges. The law has been important in the pursuit of college accessibility for undocumented students in California, but not all beneficiaries are undocumented, as approximately two thirds of those benefitted possess U.S. citizenship.

Birthright generation is a term used by immigrant advocates to identify US-born citizens, who are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It grants American citizenship to all babies born on American soil even if the child is born to one or both undocumented parents. Birthright citizenship may be also conferred either by jus soli or jus sanguinis. Under American law, any person born within the US, including the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted US citizenship.

<i>Adams v. Howerton</i>

Adams v. Howerton, 673 F.2d 1036, cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1111 (1982) is a decision from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that held that the term "spouse" refers to an opposite-sex partner for the purposes of immigration law and that this definition met the standard at the time for rational basis review. It was the first U.S. lawsuit to seek recognition of a same-sex marriage by the federal government.

The North Carolina Community College System (NCCCS) is the governing body for North Carolina's 58 public community colleges and has been empowered by the state of North Carolina to "adopt all policies, regulations and standards it may deem necessary for operation of the System" by the North Carolina General Assembly. On March 19, 2010, the State Board of Community Colleges approved policy 23 N.C.A.C. 02C .0301 entitled "Admission to Colleges". The State Board has been researching and amending the policy for a decade now and it was implemented on July 10, 2010, after completing the full amendment process. The Admission to Colleges policy states "undocumented immigrants can enter the system's 58 community colleges if they are a graduate of a United States high school, pay out-of-state tuition, and do not displace a North Carolina or United States citizen"

Undocumented youth in the United States are young people living in the United States without U.S. citizenship or other legal immigration status. An estimated 1.1 million undocumented minors resided in the U.S. as of 2010, making up 16% of the undocumented population of 11 million. Undocumented students face unique legal uncertainties and limitations within the United States educational system. They are sometimes called the 1.5 generation, as they have spent a majority of their lives in the United States.

Truax v Raich239 US 33 (1915) was a U.S. Supreme Court case concerning U.S. labor laws, the right to work, immigration law, and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Fiallo v. Bell, 430 U.S. 787 (1977), was a U.S. Supreme Court case that challenged the constitutionality of Sections 101(b)(1)(D) and 101(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The Sections gave immigration preference to children or parents of either existing U.S. citizens or of noncitizens residing under lawful permanent resident status. But, as the Court wrote, the statute defined “child” narrowly: “an unmarried person under 21 years of age who is a legitimate or legitimated child, a stepchild, an adopted child, or an illegitimate child seeking preference by virtue of his relationship with his mother”.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SCR 1044</span> Arizona Immigration Legislation

The Senate Concurrent Resolution 1044 or Arizona In-Sate Tuition for Non-Citizen Resident Measure is a legislatively referred state statute on the ballot for the November 8, 2022 election in Arizona. SCR 1044 would repeal provisions of Proposition 300 passed in 2006. SCR 1044 would give voters the opportunity to allow all students, including Arizonan Dreamers, to receive in-state college tuition when a student (a) attended a school in Arizona for a minimum of two years and (b) graduated from a public school, private school, or homeschool in Arizona.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 "Nyquist v. Mauclet, 97 S.Ct. 2120 (1977)". Human Rights. 6 (3): 302–305. Spring 1977.
  2. 1 2 3 4 Evans, Alona E. (October 1977). "Nyquist v. Mauclet". American Journal of International Law. 71 (4): 782–783. doi:10.2307/2199589. JSTOR   2199589.
  3. 1 2 3 "Nyquist v. Rabinovitch, Nyquist v. Mauclet (76-208)," Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases 1976, no. 54 (May 31, 1977): 9
  4. 1 2 3 "Nyquist v. Rabinovitch, Nyquist v. Mauclet (76-208)," Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases 1976, no. 54 (May 31, 1977): 10
  5. ↑ "Equal Protection: Strict Scrutiny of Racial Classifications", Congressional Research Service (June 30, 2023):1
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.