73 F.4th 304
5th Cir.2023Background
- In 1996 Congress enacted IIRIRA §1623(a), which bars an alien not lawfully present from being eligible for postsecondary education benefits on the basis of state residence unless U.S. citizens are eligible for the same benefit without regard to residency.
- Texas statutes set resident tuition (about $50/credit) and nonresident tuition ($458/credit); Texas law allows unlawfully present aliens who meet residency criteria to qualify for in-state tuition.
- Young Conservatives of Texas Foundation (YCT), a student group with many out-of-state members at the University of North Texas (UNT), sued UNT officials challenging Tex. Educ. Code §54.051(d) (the nonresident tuition provision) as preempted by §1623(a); YCT disclaimed any direct challenge to the rates charged to unlawfully present aliens.
- The district court granted summary judgment to YCT, held §54.051(d) expressly and impliedly preempted by §1623(a), and permanently enjoined UNT officials from enforcing §54.051(d) against U.S. citizens at UNT.
- On appeal, the Fifth Circuit concluded YCT has associational standing but reversed the district court’s preemption holdings and vacated the injunction, holding §54.051(d) is neither expressly nor impliedly preempted by §1623(a).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing (associational) to challenge §54.051(d) | YCT members suffer economic injury by paying higher out-of-state tuition traceable to UNT enforcement; injunction would redress injury | Any injury is self-inflicted by choosing to attend UNT at disclosed out-of-state rates | YCT has associational standing; members prove injury, causation, redressability |
| Express preemption under 8 U.S.C. §1623(a) | §1623(a) prohibits states from making aliens eligible based on residence unless citizens are made eligible, so §54.051(d) (which results in citizen ineligibility) is preempted | §1623(a) is prohibitory toward alien eligibility, not an affirmative command forcing states to grant citizens benefits; §54.051(d) merely sets nonresident price and does not grant benefits to aliens | §54.051(d) is not expressly preempted; the district court misread §1623(a) and imposed a duty the statute does not contain |
| Conflict/implied preemption with §1623(a) | The tuition scheme cannot coexist with §1623(a); either aliens get in-state treatment or citizens cannot be charged nonresident rates | §1623(a) only limits alien eligibility; §54.051(d) can coexist because it simply sets nonresident tuition and does not confer benefits to aliens | No implied or conflict preemption; compliance with both federal statute and §54.051(d) is possible and §54.051(d) does not thwart IIRIRA objectives |
| Permanent injunction against UNT officials | An injunction is necessary to stop enforcement of the preempted statute and redress members | Injunction improper because the statute is not preempted and the district court erred as a matter of law | District court abused its discretion by enjoining enforcement based on erroneous preemption analysis; injunction vacated |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing elements: injury, causation, redressability)
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (1977) (associational standing requires members could sue in their own right)
- Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908) (permits suits against state officials to enjoin ongoing violations of federal law)
- Cipollone v. Liggett Grp., Inc., 505 U.S. 504 (1992) (preemption principles and Supremacy Clause analysis)
- Ingersoll-Rand Co. v. McClendon, 498 U.S. 133 (1990) (statutory text, structure, and purpose guide preemption inquiry)
- Puerto Rico v. Franklin Cal. Tax-Free Tr., 579 U.S. 115 (2016) (express preemption clause analysis focuses on plain statutory wording)
- Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. 373 (2015) (conflict preemption: impossibility or obstacle to congressional purpose)
- Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U.S. 725 (1981) (presumption against preemption absent clear congressional intent)
- Baldwin v. Fish & Game Comm’n of Mont., 436 U.S. 371 (1978) (standing to challenge nonresident pricing)
- Peaches Ent. Corp. v. Ent. Repertoire Assocs., 62 F.3d 690 (5th Cir. 1995) (standards for abuse of discretion in granting permanent injunction)