Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Toll v. Moreno

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawSupremacy ClauseFederal PreemptionAlienageSupremacy Clausepreemptionaliensnonimmigrant aliens

Facts

The University of Maryland granted in-state status for tuition and fees to citizens and immigrant aliens who satisfied domicile-related requirements, but categorically denied that status to nonimmigrant aliens. The named respondents were University students living in Maryland and financially dependent on parents holding G-4 visas as employees of international organizations. Federal law permitted G-4 visa holders to establish domicile in the United States, and many G-4 employees also enjoyed federal and, in some instances, state and local tax exemptions on their organizational salaries. Despite respondents' Maryland residence, the University denied them in-state status solely because of their nonimmigrant classification.

Issue

Whether the University of Maryland's policy violates the Supremacy Clause insofar as it categorically denies in-state tuition status to domiciled nonimmigrant aliens holding G-4 visas, and their dependents, solely because of that federal immigration classification.

Rule

Under the Supremacy Clause, a State may not impose discriminatory burdens on lawfully admitted aliens when those burdens add restrictions or disadvantages not contemplated by Congress. Where Congress has permitted a class of nonimmigrant aliens to establish domicile in the United States and has conferred special federal tax benefits on that class, a state policy that denies domiciled members of that class in-state tuition solely because of their federal immigration status is preempted.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Lakeview State University in Ohio grants resident tuition to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents who satisfy the school's domicile rules. It categorically denies resident tuition to students dependent on parents holding G-4 visas, even when those parents have lived and formed domicile in Ohio for several years.

If challenged under the Supremacy Clause, how should a court most likely rule?

Explanation. The majority held that a State may not impose discriminatory burdens on lawfully admitted aliens when those burdens are not contemplated by Congress. Congress deliberately allowed G-4 aliens to establish domicile, unlike many other nonimmigrant categories. A categorical denial of resident tuition to domiciled G-4 aliens or their dependents solely because of that federal classification adds an ancillary burden and is preempted.