Kaider v. Hamos
2012 IL App (1st) 111109
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2012Background
- Plaintiff Kaider seeks leave to file a taxpayer's suit to enjoin disbursement of state funds under 735 ILCS 5/11-303 for All Kids and Moms & Babies programs.
- Plaintiff argues these programs extend benefits to unlawfully present aliens in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1621(a).
- Illinois statutes allegedly opt out of the federal ban via 8 U.S.C. § 1621(d), allowing benefits to unlawful aliens.
- All Kids and Moms & Babies are administered by the Department of Healthcare and Family Services; Moms & Babies covers prenatal care and postnatal care while All Kids covers children.
- Moms & Babies allows non-citizens to receive prenatal care; All Kids extends coverage to children up to 300% FPL with no immigration status limits.
- Court reviews de novo statutory interpretation to determine if Illinois statutes affirmatively provide for eligibility of unlawful aliens and if any preemption or misuse of funds applies.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 8 U.S.C. 1621(d) require express wording to affirmatively provide benefits to unlawful aliens? | Kaider contends statutes must expressly reference illegal aliens. | Hamos argues any positive expression confirming opt-out suffices. | No express reference required; affirmative expression sufficient. |
| Do Illinois statutes for Moms & Babies and All Kids affirmatively opt out of 1621(a)? | Statutes do not clearly extend benefits to unlawful aliens. | Statutes clearly provide for noncitizens and extend benefits beyond citizen limits. | Statutes positively evidence the opt-out and extend benefits to unlawfully present individuals. |
| Is there implied preemption of these state benefits by federal law? | Programs conflict with 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv) and § 1601(6). | Section 1621(d) preserves states' ability to provide benefits without implied preemption. | Not preempted; Congress permitted opt-out and did not intend to prohibit. |
Key Cases Cited
- Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, 241 P.3d 855 (Cal. 2010) (section 1621(d) does not require express reference to illegal aliens)
- Eychaner v. Gross, 202 Ill. 2d 228 (Ill. 2002) (statutory construction and deference to plain language; general rule for interpretation)
- Citizens Opposing Pollution v. ExxonMobil Coal U.S.A., 2012 IL 111286 (Ill. 2012) (statutory interpretation guiding doctrine for Illinois cases)
- Daly v. County of Madison, 378 Ill. 357 (Ill. 1941) (well-pled facts; burden on taxpayer actions in public funds misuse cases)
- Solich v. George & Anna Portes Cancer Prevention Center of Chicago, Inc., 158 Ill. 2d 76 (Ill. 1994) (statutory interpretation; limits on implied exceptions)
- Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, 241 P.3d 855 (Cal. 2010) (no need for express words; affirmatively applies to undocumented aliens)
- Geier v. Honda American Motor Co., 529 U.S. 861 (S. Ct. 2000) (saving clause limits and conflict preemption analysis in federal-state interplay)