Dandamudi v. Tisch
686 F.3d 66
2d Cir.2012Background
- Nonimmigrant aliens (H-1B and TN) residing in New York are legally authorized to work as pharmacists.
- New York Education Law § 6805(1)(6) requires pharmacist licenses only for U.S. Citizens or Lawful Permanent Residents.
- The waiver allowing noncitizens to obtain pharmacist licenses expired in 2009, prompting plaintiffs to sue state officials.
- District Court granted summary judgment and enjoined enforcement of § 6805(1)(6) against plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs alleged the statute violates Equal Protection and the Supremacy Clause; the court held it unconstitutional under strict scrutiny.
- Court concluded that discrimination against lawfully admitted nonimmigrants in licensing is not narrowly tailored and conflicts with federal immigration policy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether alienage discrimination triggers strict scrutiny | Nonimmigrant aliens are lawfully admitted and should receive Graham protection. | Discrimination should be reviewed under rational basis for nonimmigrant aliens. | Strict scrutiny applies; statute unconstitutional. |
| Whether nonimmigrant aliens are a suspect class under Graham | Aliens lawfully admitted share rights with citizens/LPRs for Equal Protection purposes. | Nonimmigrants are distinct from citizens and LPRs; not a suspect class. | Nonimmigrants within Graham’s scope treated as suspect class; strict scrutiny applies. |
| Whether the NY statute is narrowly tailored to a compelling interest | Disallowing nonimmigrant pharmacists lacks a compelling government interest and is overbroad. | States may protect public health via licensure controls; rational basis review suffices. | Not narrowly tailored; unconstitutional. |
| Whether preemption/Supremacy Clause issues affect the ruling | Federal immigration policy preempts state licensing discrimination against lawfully admitted aliens. | States may regulate licensure; preemption is not triggered here. | Supremacy concerns acknowledged but resolution rests on Equal Protection; preemption reinforces invalidity. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (aliens as a suspect class; strong protection under EP)
- Takahashi v. Fish & Game Comm'n, 334 U.S. 410 (1948) (alien status used to deny licenses; strict scrutiny guidance)
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (undocumented aliens; heightened rational basis)
- Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973) (immigrants; strict scrutiny for civil service restriction)
- In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 717 (1973) (immigrant license restrictions; strict scrutiny)
- Flores de Otero v. Flores de Otero, 426 U.S. 572 (1976) (professional licenses; heightened scrutiny for aliens)
- Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1 (1977) (education benefits; strict scrutiny with alienage focus)
- LeClerc v. Webb, 419 F.3d 405 (2005) (Fifth Circuit; discuss LPR vs non-LPR distinctions)
- LULAC v. Bredesen, 500 F.3d 523 (2007) (Sixth Circuit; noncitizen classifications and driver’s licenses)
- Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1 (1982) (limits on state burdens when Congress permits temporary admission)
- Freightliner Corp. v. Myrick, 514 U.S. 280 (1995) (preemption and field regulation principles)
- Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) (preemption and field conflict with immigration policy)