Martinez v. Regents of University of California
117 Cal. Rptr. 3d 359
| Cal. | 2010Background
- California Education Code section 68130.5 exempts from nonresident tuition certain students who meet criteria including three years of California high school attendance and graduation or equivalent, even if not lawfully present in the U.S.
- Section 1623 of Title 8 U.S.C. prohibits unlawful aliens from eligibility for state postsecondary benefits on the basis of residence unless a citizen is eligible, enacted in 1996 as part of IRIRA.
- Plaintiffs, U.S. citizens, allege section 68130.5 violates §1623 and seek reimbursement of nonresident tuition and other relief.
- Court of Appeal held §68130.5 violated §1621 and §1623 and was impliedly preempted, but allowed amendments on some claims and found §68130.5 violated the Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause.
- California Supreme Court reverses, holding §68130.5 does not violate §1623 or §1621, is not impliedly preempted, and does not violate the Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause, remanding for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does §68130.5 violate §1623 by granting benefits on basis of residence? | Plaintiffs argue the exemption grants in-state benefits to unlawful aliens on residence grounds. | Defendants contend the exemption is not based on residence but on other criteria (California schooling, status, and intent to legalize). | No violation; exemption is not based on residence. |
| Does §68130.5 violate §1621 or face implied preemption | Plaintiffs contend express and/or implied preemption bars the statute. | Defendants maintain §68130.5 complies with §1621 and §1623 and is not preempted. | Not preempted; complies with express preemption standards and survives implied preemption challenges. |
| Does §68130.5 violate the Fourteenth Amendment privileges and immunities clause | Plaintiffs argue the clause obligates equal treatment of citizens vs. unlawful aliens for public benefits. | Defendants argue the clause does not apply to aliens and the statute does not infringe citizen rights. | Not violated; clause is interpreted narrowly and §68130.5 does not abridge it. |
| Is §68130.5 invalid for any other reasons (due process/equal protection, etc.) | Plaintiffs assert constitutional infirmities beyond preemption and privileges/immunities concerns. | Defendants contend no other constitutional defects exist. | Other challenges lack merit; statute remains valid. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Jose C., 45 Cal.4th 534 (Cal. 2009) (immigration preemption framework and field/obstacle analysis)
- De Canas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (U.S. Supreme Court 1976) (immigration regulation preemption principle)
- INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U.S. 289 (U.S. Supreme Court 2001) (statutory preemption and immigration consequences)
- Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U.S. 470 (U.S. Supreme Court 1996) (statutory interpretive framework for preemption and purpose)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Services, Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (U.S. Supreme Court 2005) (express preemption and implied preemption boundaries)
- Kimbrough v. United States, 552 U.S. 85 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (reasonableness of statutory interpretation and deference to agency action)
- Saenz v. Roe, 526 U.S. 489 (U.S. Supreme Court 1999) (privileges and immunities clause and interstate travel)
- Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (U.S. Supreme Court 1982) (equal protection and undocumented students' rights to education)
- League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 997 F. Supp. 1244 (N.D. Cal. 1997) (federal preemption of state immigration restrictions; relevance disputed)