Hong Pham v. Starkowski
16 A.3d 635
Conn.2011Background
- Hong Pham filed a class action challenging Spec. Sess., 2009 No. 09-5 §§ 55 and 64 (Spec.Sess.P.A.09-5) which terminate or limit state-funded medical assistance for certain aliens with under five years’ U.S. residence.
- Plaintiff seeks to enjoin enforcement of §§ 55 and 64 on equal protection grounds under federal and Connecticut constitutions.
- SMANC historically provided state-funded medical care to qualified aliens displaced by federal five-year rule; § 64 substantially repealed SMANC.
- SAGA-medical eligibility was narrowed by § 55 to exclude those who meet federal Medicaid categorical eligibility, affecting class members.
- Class was certified; trial court held §§ 55 and 64 violated equal protection and issued an injunction; defendant appealed.
- Connecticut Supreme Court reversed, holding §§ 64 and 55 do not discriminate on the basis of alienage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do §§ 55 and 64 discriminate on alienage? | Pham argues alienage-based discrimination. | Starkowski contends no alienage-based classification. | No alienage-based discrimination established. |
| What standard of review applies to alienage classifications here? | Plaintiff seeks strict scrutiny for alienage-based impact. | Defendant argues rational basis may apply due to federal immigration policy. | Court did not need strict scrutiny; found no alienage-based classification. |
| Do §55 and §64 violate Connecticut constitution article I, §20 as discriminatory? | Plaintiff invokes state equal protection grounds. | Defendant argues §55, §64 are not alienage classifications. | Court avoided ruling on this ground after deciding no alienage-based classification. |
Key Cases Cited
- Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) (aliens invalidated when citizens favored under state program)
- Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1 (1977) (discrimination within alienage context invalidates benefits to aliens only)
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) (aliens’ rights under education programs analyzed under strict scrutiny)
- Barannikova v. Greenwich, 229 Conn. 664 (1994) (state alienage classifications in alien‑only programs can trigger strict scrutiny)
- Doe v. Commissioner of Transitional Assistance, 437 Mass. 521 (2002) (alien-only state program not compared to citizens’ federal program; rational basis within aliens)
- Soskin v. Reinertson, 353 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2004) (rational basis review for aliens’ treatment within aliens-only program)
- Khrapunskiy v. Doar, 12 N.Y.3d 478 (2009) (aliens barred from federal program; state need not remediate with equal benefits)
- Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976) (Congress’ immigration power allows differing benefits for aliens vs. citizens)
- Aliessa v. Novello, 96 N.Y.2d 418 (2001) (alien-only program; disallowed complete citizen-equivalent benefits)
- Ehrlich v. Perez, 394 Md. 691 (2006) ( Maryland: elimination of alien-only funding not necessarily barred; contested as discrimination not addressed in that decision)