*1 NYQUIST, COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION OF YORK,
NEW MAUCLET et et al. al. Argued 22, 1977 13, 1977 76-208. March No. June —Decided *2 Brennan, Court, J., opinion which delivered the Blackmun, J., dis- joined. Burger, filed a JJ., C. White, Marshall, Stevens, and dissenting opinion, in J., post, p. filed a Powell, senting opinion, 12. Rehnquist, post, J., J., joined, p. 15. and C. Burger, Stewart, which post, p. 17. J., joined, Burger, dissenting opinion, in which C. J., filed a York, Gordon, Attorney of New A. General Judith Assistant were her on the briefs With argued appellants. the cause for A. Samuel Lefkowitz, Attorney General, and Louis J. Hirshowitz,. Attorney First Assistant General. Mauclet. appellee the cause for argued
Michael Davidson J. Gary Kennedy. Kevin him brief With on the appellee Greenberg filed brief argued cause and Rabinovitch. Court. of the opinion delivered Blackmun
MR. Justice from state resident aliens York, by statute, New bars certain Law N. Y. Educ. higher financial assistance for education. presents a (3) Supp. 1976). litigation This (McKinney § 661 challenge to that statute. constitutional
I forms, in three primarily provides assistance, New York type first is pursuing higher The students education. high scholarship. are awarded Regents college These competitive in a graduates performance school on the basis of the usual Currently, (1) §§ examination. and years four annually for $250 recipient is entitled to case, The (3)(b).1 and study regard (2) without to need. §§ Regents professional special competitive awards: There also are other nursing scholarships, Y. Educ. Law N. §§ education form second chief of aid tuition assistance award. These are noncompetitive; they are graduate available to both and undergraduate students in approved programs “enrolled and who ability demonstrate the complete such courses.” 604 (1) §§ The amount of depends the award on both tuition ceiling and income. The on assistance was $600, although undergraduates it has been increased for $1,500. 667 (3) §1 third form of assistance is the student guaranteed by The loan §§ loan. 680-684. State; a meeting borrower certain restrictions is en- income titled to favorable generally interest rates and an interest- grace free period of at months completes least nine after he *3 his terminates of study. course 682 (2) (3).-2 §§ and There are several general eligibility for par restrictions ticipation in any programs. of these 661. For example, § there is residency a modest requirement. durational 661§ (5).3 The only instant however, (3). concerns 661 dispute, § That provides: subsection
“Citizenship. An of applicant (a) must be a citizen States, (b) United or application must have made (McKinney 1976); Supp. Regents professional or medicine education dentistry scholarships, (3) shortage 672; Regents physician 605 and §§ (4) scholarships, 673; scholarships, Regents 605 and war veteran §§ (5) 674; Regents University scholarships, 605 and and Cornell 605 §§ 2 program largely by The loan is subsidized the Federal Government. (In 20 U. (1970 V). See S. C. Supp. to 1087-2 ed. and fiscal §§1071 expenditure program 1976 the federal for New York’s loan $67,208,000 $9,466,000. Appel and the state contribution was Brief for * *.) Although lants 8 17 appears n. n. it administrators that federal lodged objections disqualifying have not certain practice to the State’s of aliens, App. 82, eligible resident see make for the federal standards would a assistance alien who “is in the for other than student United States temporary purpose permanent resident thereof.” intends to become a (a) (1976). 45 177.2 CFR§ 3 requirement subject challenge This See is not the here. Vlandis Kline, (1971), (1973); 412 Malkerson, U. S. 441 S. 985 Starns v. U. aff’g Supp. (Minn. 1970). 326 F. citizenship, for (c) qualified citizen, or if not apply affirming intent a statement submit
must qualifica as he has the citizenship United as soon States citizenship, apply eligible must as soon as tions, pa refugees a class of must be an individual (d) under of the United States attorney general roled of aliens authority pertaining the admission parole his to the United States.” from assistance obviously to bar serves The statute satisfy its do aliens who participation of all programs student many such as here on those aliens, terms. Since establishing a precluded federal law visas, be g., country, see, e. S. C. residence this permanent 661§ the bar of 22 CFR (15) (F) (i); §41.45 (a) Court only resident aliens. practical significance like “Resident group: this affected has observed of Armed serve in the support economy, pay taxes, society.” ways to our myriad other and contribute in Forces, In re
II a citizen of France Mauclet Appellee Jean-Marie per- has been York 1969. He April has lived New since United since November resident States manent *4 child has a citizen and year. He is married to a United States citizen. a States marriage. The child also United that pres- I “Although am by affidavit stated: App. 49. Mauclet reside citizenship and intend to apply for ently qualified to (2) (3) replaced of the State’s Education former Section § N. filed. 1974 Y. Law, appellees’ complaints were effect the times at (d) of the suits. Laws, the c. 942. Clause was added after commencement 663, (d) make class of Laws, to a 1975 N. Y. c. 1. Since clause serves § citizenship apply for regard aid intent to eligible for without arguments as to citizenship, undermine the State’s its inclusion serves to purposes the first three clauses. See n. served infra. permanently in the United I States, do not wish to relinquish my French citizenship Id., at this time.” at He applied 50. for a tuition assistance award aid in meeting the expenses graduate of his studies University at State of New York at Buffalo. Because of apply his refusal United States his citizenship, application processed. Id., was. not at 49-50. Appellee Alan Rabinovitch ais citizen of He Canada. was country admitted to this in 1964 age perma- at the as a nine nent resident alien. He is his and, unmarried since admission, has lived in York parents New with his younger sister, a all of whom are registered Canadian citizens. He with Selec- tive his birthday. Service on 18th graduated He in 1973 public the New York system. Id., school at As of a result performance commendable competitive Regents Qualifying Examinations, Rabinovitch was informed qualified that he was for, Regents college and entitled to, scholarship and tuition He advised, assistance. later was that however, the offer of scholarship was withdrawn since Id., he intended retain his citizenship. Canadian at 69, 25. Brooklyn Rabinovitch College without finan- entered cial aid from the State. He states that he “does not intend to become a naturalized but . . does intend American, . Id.,
continue to reside in New York.” at 65. Mauclet and Rabinovitch each brought suit in United States (Mauclet District Court in the Western District of New York in the District), alleging Eastern Rabinovitch citizenship bar of (3) § 661 The same unconstitutional. three-judge court was convened for each Sub- cases. sequently, together. it was ordered that the cases be heard App. summary 45. After cross motions judgment, appellees’ opinion District Court a unanimous ruled in Equal favor. It held Protection violated citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment required citizen, In order to a United States Mauclet would be citizenship. (a). to renounce bis French 8 U. G. 1448 *5 6 unconstitutionally against discriminate served to
requirement EDNY (WDNY 1233 Supp. 406 F. resident aliens.6 enjoined separate judgments. 1976). enforcement was Its App. 103, 106. entities corporate individuals various
Appellants —the assistance educational administering State’s responsible probable noted We this determination.7 programs challenge — 917 (1976). S. 429 U. jurisdiction. 6 against resident discrimination have held that Other courts also See, g., e. impermissible. is assistance of educational distribution Giles, Jagnandan 379 (CA3 1972); v. Gerard, 456 2d Chapman F. v. aff’d, 2d damages and 538 F. 1974), (ND appealed Miss. Supp.
F. (CA5 pending, 1976), No. 76-832. cert. not have reached should argue the District Court also that Appellants program because (3) to the loan question applicability of of the § of the assistance Rabinovitch, challenged aspect this alone appellee who Hence, assert, he lacks appellants loan. denied a program, had not been an however, submitted litigation, Rabinovitch standing. Early in the require “may he that he to the effect believed that unrebutted affidavit he was education that help the cost of” his loans to cover student as an status receiving simply loan from student because [his] “barred Indeed, the District Court appellants conceded in App. 71. alien.” because of any refused from for a loan would be application Rabinovitch therefore, Art. Ill clear, Supp., at 1235. It is 406 F. dispute is a concrete parties and existed between the adverseness circumstances, arise only standing, would obstacle to under one. postpone no reason to resolu prudential considerations. And we see other forms of aid dispute. tion of the Rabinovitch has been denied formality go requiring through served him now to little to be loan, light certainty of its denial. submitting application for a of the Arlington Heights Metropolitan Housing Corp., 429 U. See Dev. why argument, appellants suggested no reason Until oral program Tr. of loan should differ from the other forms assistance. timely supporting Arg. suggestion more Oral In the absence of a nothing gained among aid, think that to be a distinction the forms of we regard only validity two of the adjudicating the with pro all, statutory primary programs. single After three assistance equal scription applies programs. with all force to
7 III has Court ruled by that classifications a State that are alienage based on “inherently are suspect subject and to close judicial scrutiny.” Richardson, Graham v. 403 365, U. S. 372 (1971). See Examining Otero, Board v. Flores de 426 U. 572, S. 601-602 In re (1976); Griffiths, 413 U. atS., 721; Sugarman Dougall, v. 413 642 In 634, under- taking this scrutiny, governmental “the claimed to interest justify the carefully discrimination is be to examined order whether legitimate determine interest is and sub- inquiry stantial, be made the means must whether adopted to goal necessary precisely achieve the are Examining Otero, drawn.” Flores de 426 Board v. atS.,U. Alienage In re S., See 413 at 721-722. U. stringent this classifications State that do not withstand examination cannot stand.8 subjected claim be
Appellants should not scrutiny to such not a classifica- impose strict because it does Diaz, applied v. the Court relaxed Mathews U. S. 67 scrutiny validity conditioned an upholding of a federal statute that program eligibility participation alien’s for in a federal medical insurance residency requirement, imposed no satisfaction a durational but from the appellants similar burden on citizens. The can draw no solace ease, however, pains emphasize Congress, at because the Court was enjoys power immigration naturalization, as broad aspect over its rights distinguish among that are not the States. shared Id., Hampton Wong, Sun at 84-87. Mow S. 100-101 See U. v. Bica, (1976); De Canas 358 n. perhaps worthy program
It is under of note that Medicare granted permanent eligibility consideration in Diaz resident alien when years’ he years. had resided in the United for five residence States Five required generally period also the under law before an alien federal (a). ironically, Yet, seek to naturalized. C. this be 8 U. S. precisely petition point which, York, at in New a resident must for or, irrespective intent, eligibility naturalization of declared lose his for higher education assistance. citizen- applied have alienage.9 based on Aliens who tion filed it, if have a statement or, qualified who ship, not they eligible, allowed apply soon as are are intent programs. Hence, said, it is participate the assistance “only 'heterogeneous’ within class distinguishes statute and aliens distinguish between citizens aliens” “does *7 classi- Only statutory 20.10 Appellants vel non.” Brief for strict warrant type, appellants assert, of the latter fications scrutiny. Richardson, supra, posi- appellants’
Graham v. undermines an Arizona statute the Court considered case, tion. that residency requirement for welfare imposed durational York Like New on but not on citizens. benefits aliens to dis- the Arizona statute served challenged here, statute met the the class of aliens: Aliens who criminate within only residency requirement were to welfare durational entitled 9 scrutiny ap Appellants be seem assert strict not also should deny neces plied because does alien aid to education “access to They joined Appellants sities life.” view Brief for are in this statutory say, dissent. Sufficeit to statement of Justice Chief purpose programs contrary for the position: aid reflects the State’s advance, progress “In technological a world of unmatched scientific danger freedom, learning unparalleled as well as of has never to human safety, progress been more crucial to man’s and individual fulfillment. higher longer luxury; In the state is it is a and nation education no necessity strength, Laws, 389, for fulfillment 1961 and survival.” c. N. Y. Ka). § And, any event, Richardson, the Court v. S. noted in Graham 403 U. inherently 376 (1971), alienage based on “are classifications suspect subject and are scrutiny therefore to strict whether or not a fun- right damental impaired.” is 10The abruptly appellants’ District Court dealt with contention: argument “This logic. apply, apply agree defies aliens who Those eligible, when citizenship relinquishing are alien Because status. their agree some change under the does statute’s coercion status their not alter the solely fact alienage.” that the on classification based Supp., F. at 1235. subjected
benefits. The Court nonetheless the statute to scrutiny important strict and held it unconstitutional. The points (3) only § are that is directed at aliens and that aliens are harmed it. The fact that the statute is not an absolute bar does not mean that it does not discriminate against Lucas, class.11 Cf. Mathews Surety (1976); Casualty 504-505, 11n. Weber v. & Aetna Co., 406 U. 164, 169,
Appellants justifications adequate also assert that there are for 661 the section is an incentive First, said offer aliens to become the restriction Second, naturalized. scrutiny Rehnquist argues Our Brother in dissent that strict voluntarily inappropriate because under a resident alien can hardly aspect withdraw from disfavored status. But this the statute distinguishes By dissenting past logic opinion, our decisions. suspect only alienage class for would be defined to include at most country years, those who have resided in this for less than five since after *8 time, before, that if generally eligible not resident aliens are to become (a). citizens. 8 suggested, U. S. C. The Court has never how 1427 § ever, suspect narrowly. the fact, class is to be defined so In the element of voluntariness in a resident alien’s retention alien status is a of recognized in example, element several of the Court’s decisions. the For acknowledged Court that In re S. involved an U. (1973), 717 413 appellant eligible who was for citizenship, but who had not filed a declara tion of citizen, intention to become a and present had “no intention of doing Id., And, so.” revealed, nothing 718 n. 1. insofar as the record precluded Sugarman appellees Dougall, in v. U. S. 634 413 from applying citizenship. Id., J., dissenting). at 650 (Rehnquist, Rehnquist argued there, just in dissent here Mr. as he does Justice today, scrutiny inappropriate strict was in there those cases because nothing by to indicate that changed the aliens’ their status “cannot be Id., affirmative Nonetheless, acts.” at 657. applied the Court strict scrutiny in the cases. see depart We no to from them now. reason 12The part: footnote in reads statutory
“That among challenged classifications here discriminate illegitimate mean, children course, they does not of not also are properly described discriminating illegitimate as legitimate between children.” only those who will eligible
assistance are or purpose program, vote is tailored to the of the assistance of the level namely, enhancement educational of Appellants justifications Brief for 22-25. Both electorate. preser are to be York’s in the claimed related to New interest Dou “political community.” Sugarman vation its of See v. Blumstein, gall, Dunn S., 642-643, 647-649; 413 U. at v. 330, what purpose appellants, directed to first offered Brief for they “degree affinity,” national describe some of as for a Appellants permissible one State. 18, however, ex- is entrusted immigration and naturalization Control over no and a State has clusively Government, the Federal Art See Const., I, 8,§ interfere. S. cl. power to v. Graham (1976); 426 U. S. 84-85 67, Mathews Diaz, v. Fish & Game 376-380; at Takahashi Richardson, S.,U. accept, we Comm’n, if 334 U. But even justifications, we find arguendo, proffered of the validity inadequate support them the ban.13 (3), appellants justifications refer support of the offered for §661 adopted substantially legislation in purpose of 1961 that a statement programs. Laws, Y. c. 1. But the State’s 1961 N. amended aid § speaks only general encouraging education so terms statement genius, range leadership, “to and source provide as broad inventive (a), growth oncoming generations,” economic and cultural fully leadership,” (c)— developing “reservoir talent future purposes extending aid aliens well that would be served to resident hardly supports unambiguous appellants as to citizens —and clear Moreover, statutory against regard terms. aliens with discrimination *9 Regents scholarships long before. Y. certain dates 1920 N. Laws, very appellants rely 502, legislation 1. And the c. which § statutory disqualification abolished aliens in favor of an adminis the 7, 14, Laws, trative rule. 1961 N. Y. c. 2 and 391, 18. See also §§ §§ fact, it appears and 19. In that the aid the state administrators programs purposes legislation appellants did not find the in the urge, precursor (3) between 1961 and the since when Sugarman In Dougall, S., at the Court rec- ognized that the State’s interest “in establishing its own form of and in government, limiting participation in that government to those who are within 'the basic conception of a ” political community’ might justify some consideration of alienage. But as Sugarman quite makes the clear, Court had in mind a State’s historical and powers constitutional to define qualifications of voters,14 or of important “elective or nonelective” officials “who participate directly in the formula- tion, execution, review public policy.” Id., of broad at 647. id., See at In 648. re decided the day, same reflects the narrowness of exception. despite a case, recognition of public the vital political of attorneys, role the Court found invalid a state-court practice rule limiting of law to citizens. 413 at S.,U. 729.
Certainly, justifications by appel- offered sweep beyond lants far the confines of exception defined Sugarman. If encouragement through naturalization programs these were seen every as then discrimina- adequate, against tion similarly justified. could be exception would swallow Sugarman the rule. clearly not tolerate does that result. Nor does the educating claimed interest provide electorate a justification; although such education is a laudable objective, hardly it would be frustrated includ- ing resident aliens, well as the State’s assistance programs.15
adopted, resident aliens were allowed to receive tuition
awards.
assistance
Appellants
Brief
Smith,
(Md.
summarily
Supp.
1974),
See also Perkins v.
370 F.
aff'd,
Resident no programs. There support taxes that the assistance thus equal right in an allowing real unfairness resident aliens they equal on which contribute an participate programs to in- from full although alien be barred basis. And political may play perhaps he arena, in the volvement role— com- import to the leadership even a role—in other areas of by providing resi- munity. surely is not The State harmed it offers opportunity dent same aliens the educational others. violates challenged hold that statute
Since we we protection guarantee, equal Fourteenth Amendment’s upon appellees’ need not claim it also intrudes reach authority immigration and Congress’ comprehensive over 378; Richardson, 403 U. atS., naturalization. See Graham v. Raich, Truax v. 239 U. S. District are judgments Court affirmed.
It ordered. is so Burger, dissenting. Mr. Chief Justice Rehnquist’s I Powell’s join Mr. and Mr. Justice Justice yet point I this comment to out opinions, but add dissenting prior significant other between this case our differences alienage-based cases involving classifications. prior upon
With which Court exception, the cases one purports rely prohibited involved statutes which occupations thereby certain engaging in professions, ability Exam impairing g., their earn a livelihood. See, e. ining Otero, Flores (Puerto Board v. de 572 (1976) Arg. Thus, appears the inclusion of resident aliens in it programs impact assistance will have an insubstantial cost of programs. And, any event, suggestion the State can favor rejected citizens over aliens in the largely distribution benefits was Richardson, supra. Graham v. *11 only permitted
Rico to prac statute United States citizens private tice as In re 413 engineers); civil 717 in bar (membership citizens); limited to state Sugarman v. Dougall, U. 634 (1973) (participation S. in competitive State’s citizens); civil service limited to Comm’n, Takahashi v. Fish (1948) (state & Game 334 U. S. statute fishing persons denied license to to citizen “ineligible Raich, ship”) Truax ; (state v. U. constitution S. 33 (1915) to required employers per hire “not eighty (80) less than cent qualified or native-born of the electors citizens United Yick States”); Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U. 356 (1886) (city S. ordinance discriminatorily against aliens so to enforced prevent Chinese subjects, but not United States operating laundries within the city). only other case striking down a classification on the basis of alienage, Graham Richardson, v. U. S. involved the denial benefits needy essential to sustain life while toelfare were such given citizens benefits. The Court has noted else where the crucial role play which such providing benefits in poor with “means obtain food, to essential hous clothing, ing, Goldberg medical care.” Kelly, (1970) (footnote omitted).
In this case seeking deprive the State is not to essential of economic pursuant survival. to Rather, means power its regulate broad to its system, education the State has provide chosen types to some of individuals —those it con- provide to likely siders most a long-range return to local community national added benefits to facilitate —certain participation system its is higher education. The State certainly not preventing aliens from obtaining education, it appellees and indeed is clear attend New York colleges equal and universities on an with footing citizens. beyond that, provided the State However, certain eco- has nomic incentives its own pursue citizens induce them to higher studies, which in long run will be a benefit to the such incentives as neces- has not deemed State. The State unwilling to declare who are sary proper as to those aliens community they reside in which their commitment simple citizenship. Such acquire intent declaring their requires. declaration all the statute allows of the States my view, Constitution United Where programs. out carrying States broad latitude such higher personal is not at stake —and interest fundamental be free hardly must education is that —the State York, reasonable manner. New largesse any exercise its funds to like most other does have unlimited States, it provide services; education higher its residents with *12 that every assuring in equally clear that the State has interest an education help obtaining those to it in gives special whom re- or their intent to indicating have declare some attachment has no their skills. It practice special main within the State to from another providing interest in benefits to these transients line country The are to become citizens. willing who not few lines can perfect drawn is not State a one—and be—but further the provide it does a rational means to State’s citizens, who are legitimate objectives. Resident individuals becoming of or who declare themselves committed to idea likely American are to remain the State citizens, more to New ties graduation York after their than aliens whose are sever country they their decline to origin strong are so them order secure valuable benefits. to these I not conclude York has of New therefore State tax impermissibly dispense its limited refusing acted implication revenues clear give assistance to aliens who reject opportunity the United citizens I not specific am that we Beyond States. case, concerned aliens, all the obliterate distinctions between citizens depreciate thus citizenship. the historic values of If a in the nothing State desires —and has the means — voluntarily United it prevents giving States Constitution from scholarships even reject to those who United States citizenships. nothing But heretofore found in the Consti- tution compels to apply higher State its finite resources to education of aliens who have permanent no demonstrated attachment to the United who apply States and refuse to for citizenship. Justice Powell, with whom Chief Justice
Mr. and Mr. Justice dissenting. join, Stewart
I am for the forth in persuaded, reasons Justice set Mr. Rehnquist’s New dissent, York’s scheme of financial higher assistance education against does discriminate suspect class. The line New York has in this drawn case is not between but between aliens who' prefer foreign citizenship to retain all others. system alleged
“The it discrimination and class defines none of suspect- the traditional indicia of have ness: is not saddled such or disabilities, class with subjected history unequal to such a of purposeful treat- ment, position political power- to such a relegated lessness extraordinary protection to command the majoritarian political process.” San Antonio School Rodriguez, Dist. v. U. S. 1, *13 prior Our dealing cases with against discrimination all aliens In class, Sugarman a v. as re 717 (1973); Dougall, of (1973), against S. U. subclasses aliens without to regard ability willingness acquire to citi zenship, Graham Richardson, v. S. 365 do not U. justify application of judicial scrutiny strict to the legis today.* lative scheme us before In re personal
*The
appellant
Court’s
on the
reliance
status of the
in
misplaced.
Our
eligible
observation
herself
that Griffiths
Griffiths
for citizenship
S.,
apply,
1,
but did not intend to
at
718 n. was
hardly
challenge
more than a factual “aside.”
in
that case was
Rehnquist
line
Justice
agree
I
with
also
Mr.
scholarship assistance
extending
York
drawn
has
New
for
I
no basis
see
rational one.
a
education
higher
alien
resident
incentives to
offering
Court’s statement
[purpose]
permissible
“is not a
naturalized
scholars to
a
have
Ante,
my view,
In
the States
at 10.
for a State.”
United
to the
allegiance
encouraging
interest
substantial
persons, including resident
part
on the
of all
States
the New
As
within their borders.
come to live
who have
to the
predecessor
enacting a
York
declared in
Legislature
scheme:
present financial assistance
nation and the
“The
of the
progress
future
state
individual
upon
people depend
general welfare
pro-
citizens
number of
development of the maximum
genius,
range
leadership,
inventive
vide the broad
oncoming
growth
and cultural
source
economic
1 (a).
389, §
Y.
c.
Laws,
1961 N.
generations.”
“on
basis
neither discriminates
long
program
As
its
Richardson,
conflicts
nor
supra,
Graham v.
at
alienage,”
my
it is
policy,
immigration
with federal
and naturalization
scholar-
York
reserve its
legitimately
view that New
who
resident
ship
to those
assistance
flatly required
admis
applicant
Rule of Court
Connecticut
eligibility
be a citizen of the
Neither
sion to the bar to
United States.
apply
intent
was relevant under the Connecticut
for naturalization nor
challenge a
question
standing to
scheme. There
nowas
that Griffiths had
unques
against
aliens, just
all
as Mauelet and Rabinovitch
classification
classification,
today.
tionably
standing
challenge
before us
have
“totally
aliens from
Yet because the scheme in
re
exclud[ed]
Griffiths
practice
law,” id.,
case to consider
at
we had no occasion in that
narrowly
permissible.
a more
Had we
whether
tailored rule would be
question,
presented
so,
done
we
have confronted the additional
would
right
here,
improperly
to follow
whether
burdened
the exclusion
Comm’n, 334 U.
occupation.
Fish
chosen
Cf. Takahashi v.
& Game
(1948);
Raich,
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, with whom The Chief Justice joins, dissenting.
I am
troubled
the somewhat
application
mechanical
equal protection
Court’s
jurisprudence
I
to this case.
think one can accept the premise
Richardson,
of Graham v.
Graham starting point v. Richardson is, course, the as it was analysis, explicitly case to conclude first alienage like classifications, nationality, those based on race or subject scrutiny challenged would be to strict when under the Equal Protection Clause of Fourteenth Amendment. reasoned, Graham 403 U. at 372: S., “Aliens of a ‘discrete and prime example as a class are a Products (see insular’ United Carolene minority States v. Co., such (1938)) 304 U. for whom 144, 152-153, n. heightened judicial appropriate.” solicitude is It classifications clear, alienage the reason therefore, qua heightened scrutiny receive is because judicial Sugar minority. also aliens, are a “discrete and insular” See such Dougall, supra, Presumptively, man v. at 642. minority one identifiable group, like blacks or Orientals, *15 18 Cf. Jimenez powerless. are members over which the
a status it is no (1974). And Weinberger, 417 631 of a members time, are, aliens at some true that all doubt they identified minority in are discrete and insular eligible to change until they powerless are a status which notes, country. the Court Since, as citizens of this by aliens years’ residence requires five generally federal law prerequisite residence as lawfully permanent admitted for (a), aliens §C. naturalization, of 8 U. S. seeking to the subject period to a necessarily are residing country in this of this status they must bear during which of time in one therefore, places classification, “alien.” If a every en thereafter, then, citizens in another, and category, time period of through a tering pass resident alien must category and one country during which he into the this falls upon (a) application naturalization for Title U. S. C. allows following the conditions: subchapter, be provided shall person, except in this “No as otherwise immediately preceding petitioner, (1) the date unless such naturalized being continuously, after filing petition his for naturalization has resided residence, lawfully permanent United States admitted within preceding years years immediately during the at least five and five periods filing pltysically present petition therein for date his has been totaling time, within the State at least half has resided and who months, (2) petitioner petition six has filed for at least which peti- continuously date of the resided within the United States from the during up citizenship, all tion time of and admission person of is a period referred in this has been still subsection character, Constitution of good principles attached to the of the moral happiness States, disposed good and well order and United the United States.” (a) three-year requirement residency for aliens establishes a
Section spouse also whose citizen the United States. See 8 U. S. C. (b), (c), (d) special categories where 1434. Sections establish country required. They de prior no residence in this constitute considering alienage exceptions, properly ignored minimis be classifications. Nothing from his except time can remove him other. an “alien” associated
identified whatever status might place occupying disabilities one the statute possible it is discrete sense, status. this to view aliens as a they categorized by and insular since a factor minority, are beyond their control. *16 utilizing strict prior alienage Court,
The cases from this scrutiny to dealt statutes statutes, down state all with strike infirmity; the that necessarily where suffered line drawn incoming necessarily of line all those the drawn left cases, of disability period resident with for some aliens afflicted the the Nothing except passage time. the of time could remove disability. statutes, from The alien the classification and the infirmity which Court therefore, precise the led this involved The line “suspect accord treatment: to aliens classification” by status, was on the of a legislature drawn the drawn basis powerless members that the included were temporary, albeit change.2 to Graham Richardson seems to view
While the majority ante, statute it is clear that the different, 8-9, as somehow at the same weakness. case suffered from involved that resi- not await a durational By making but because dency coming were, into the State requirement, aliens period from citizens for a differently treated status, of their were period incoming during time, time, 2 In In re noted: 413 U. S. 718 n. the Court marriage by eligible reason of her plaintiff] for naturalization “[The for more in the United citizen of States residence States the United (a). declaration years, has not filed a three 8 U. S. C. She than States, (f), 8 U. S. C. a citizen of the United of intention become present doing and has no intention so.” however, eligibility case, built into plaintiff in that not prevented any from rule alien classification The state-court scheme. who, resident aliens becoming attorney, an and of reached those course citizenship, could jurisdictional prerequisites having not satisfied the change their disfavored status. disability (unless remove themselves powerless nothing else citizens). There was they could become discriminatory treatment. period to avoid alien could do by made these the classification cases, then, all of scrutiny strict underlying the conformed the reason State if a to follow that applied. But it would seem this Court avoids way necessarily which classifies in a state statute the statute underlying scrutiny, reason for the strict such a case. light. This is in a different should be viewed times, at all has, a resident alien statute, Under this New York and to classification himself from one power to remove he times, at all place other, for, himself de- a citizen becoming either entitled to benefits possible.3 citizen as soon as to become a claring intention his is not the resident alien the other Here, cases, unlike of the minority purposes discrete and insular member of a he must remain during period classification, even him- to remove at all times the means alien, because he has *17 There is classification. immediately from disfavored self the may alien declare disability since the resident temporal no from the disabled thereby removing himself at once intent, pe- for some cannot come to fruition even if the intent class, Sugarman, Griffiths, of Unlike the situation riod time. by status, defined Graham, period disability, no of there exists there- escape. not, The alien from which the alien cannot all statutory challengeable at notes, scheme is the Court the state As dis Ante, other aliens are also only aliens. at 4. While resident they decisively dis question, are also qualified the state statute this establishing permanent qualified by a residence federal law from (1976) ; country, (a) (15) (F) (i); 41.45 see 8 22 CFR U. S. C. § (a) question plenary 177.2 no of cf. 45 CFR Since there is Diaz, 426 power area, in this Mathews v. of Government see Federal only quite properly with U. S. 67 concerned Court “lawfully permanent resi category admitted for of resident those supra, (a) (20). generally In re dence.” 8 U. S. C. See §1101 719-722; Richardson, at Graham 403 U. S. any period fore, of time, position forced into a as a dis- crete and minority.4 insular
Since New York statute under challenge in this case does not create a discrete and minority by insular placing an disability inevitable based status, heightened the Court’s judicial scrutiny is unwarranted. The reason for more rigorous constitutional test having applicability of ceased, the test should likewise cease. the rational-basis Applying test, it is obvious statutory scheme in question should be sustained. The funds that spend New York wishes to on its higher education assistance programs course, of are, limited. New York’s choice to distribute these limited funds to resident citizens and to resident aliens who intend citizens, while denying them to aliens who have no intention of becoming is a legislative By natural judgment. limiting the pool available recipients citizens to resident and aliens will who become citizens, give New York is able to such recipients larger payment quantum the same funds than would be the case were recipients other aliens A well. State is decide, entitled to in distributing benefits, that resident citizens, they whether or not will remain resi- dents New York, likely axe more to contribute to the well-being future directly (by settling the State, either there) indirectly (by living State, in some other but main- taining economic or by improving social ties with New York or general well-being of the United than are aliens States) who are unwilling citizenship country, renounce in foreign and who be thought likely more New return there. alien, course, “give (or up” must announce that he intends to *18 give up) foreign citizenship. sense, his (a). See 8 U. S. In this C. 1448 something he must category do members of the other need not do in eligible order But, here, given to be for the “favored” treatment. what is up distinguishes is categories. the factor which between the I view cannot impermissible this as an burden which would convert this case into a case Sugarman. like Griffiths providing pursuant student loans may also decide,
York Supp. 1976), (McKinney N. Y. Law 680-684 §§ Educ. repayment citizens it will be easier to collect sums from upon. loans be defaulted These should these aliens, than Mary McGowan legislative judgments. Cf. v. permissible are land, Employment Bureau (1961); Ohio 366 U. S. Hodory, we deal, Services When v. our def questions legislation, do of economic here, with we Dan extremely great. to the actions a State erence Williams, York’s dridge New monetary benefits to aliens who deny educational decision this while extend country, citizens of do not wish to become other resident such benefits to ing citizens and should be sustained. rational,