Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion
KP-0015
| Tex. Att'y Gen. | Jul 2, 2015Background
- Texas Education Code § 54.341 (the Hazlewood Act) exempts certain veterans from tuition and fees if they currently reside in Texas and "entered the service in Texas" (the fixed-point residency requirement).
- Request from Senator Jane Nelson asked the Attorney General to opine on the constitutionality of the fixed-point residency requirement.
- A 1998 Texas Attorney General opinion (DM-468) concluded a court would find the fixed-point residency requirement unconstitutional, but that opinion lacked adversarial development of the state interests.
- A federal district court in Harris v. Cantu held the requirement must survive rational-basis review under the Equal Protection Clause and concluded it was not rationally related to a legitimate state interest; that decision is on appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
- The Attorney General disagrees with DM-468 and the district court, arguing the fixed-point rule rationally furthers legitimate state interests: (1) encouraging enlistment by Texas residents who are likely to return to Texas, and (2) targeting limited educational resources to veterans with stronger ties to Texas to maximize the state's return on investment.
- The opinion cautions the law is unsettled pending further appellate resolution but concludes the fixed-point residency requirement should withstand rational-basis review and be constitutional.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Hazlewood Act's fixed-point residency requirement violates Equal Protection | The classification (requiring entry into service in Texas) is not rationally related to a legitimate state interest and thus is unconstitutional | The requirement rationally furthers legitimate state interests: incentivizing enlistment by Texas residents and allocating scarce educational benefits to those likely to remain in Texas | AG concludes the requirement should survive rational-basis review and be constitutional; federal district court reached opposite conclusion and the issue is on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986) (addressed residency-based veteran preference in civil service; treated as retrospective reward)
- Hooper v. Bernalillo County Assessor, 472 U.S. 612 (1985) (addressed tax exemption keyed to prior residency; viewed as not incentivizing future conduct)
- Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55 (1982) (addressed oil dividend distribution tied to years of residency; treated as retrospective benefit)