C. Dean Alford v. Rigoberto Rivera Hernandez
A17A1124
| Ga. Ct. App. | Feb 22, 2017Background
- DACA recipients were denied in-state tuition by University System of Georgia Board of Regents (BOR) under BOR residency rules and OCGA § 20-3-66(d).
- DACA Recipients sought a writ of mandamus in superior court, arguing BOR must treat DACA’s grant of "lawful presence" as qualifying them for in-state tuition.
- Board Members moved to dismiss, arguing DACA confers only deferred action (no immigration status), and BOR has discretion to define "legally in this state" for tuition purposes.
- Superior court denied dismissal and granted summary judgment to the DACA Recipients, ordering BOR to apply the federal definition of lawful presence and grant in-state tuition.
- The appellate filing raised preemption and Supremacy Clause issues because the superior court’s ruling interpreted federal DACA as controlling state application of tuition eligibility.
- Because the appeal implicates a constitutional question (Supremacy Clause), the Court of Appeals transferred the case to the Supreme Court of Georgia for disposition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether BOR must treat DACA recipients as "legally in this state" for in-state tuition | DACA confers lawful presence for federal purposes and BOR must accept that federal definition when deciding tuition eligibility | DACA only grants deferred action for immigration enforcement; it does not create immigration status or bind BOR’s residency determinations under OCGA § 20-3-66(d) | Superior court held BOR must apply federal definition of lawful presence and grant in-state tuition; appeal transferred to GA Supreme Court due to Supremacy Clause jurisdiction |
| Whether superior court ruling implicates federal preemption / Supremacy Clause | DACA preempts conflicting state application that denies benefits to those lawfully present under federal scheme | BOR has discretionary authority under state law to define residency and deny in-state classification | Court of Appeals recognized that the case raises a preemption/Supremacy Clause question and transferred the appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court |
Key Cases Cited
- Babies Right Start v. Ga. Dept. of Pub. Health, 293 Ga. 553 (2013) (preemption argument implicates Georgia Supreme Court constitutional-question jurisdiction)
- Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1 (1982) (federal immigration-related classifications can raise Supremacy Clause issues)
- Ariz. Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer, 818 F.3d 901 (9th Cir. 2016) (addressing interplay of state action and federal DACA protections)
- Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis &c., 267 Ga. 177 (1996) (Georgia Supreme Court has ultimate responsibility for determining appellate jurisdiction)