*1 @We of tfie !Zlttornep 46eneral iState of I1cexaS DAN MORALES March 12,1998 ATmnNEroplEluL
Mr. Ray Farabee Opiion No. DM468 vicechzmceuorandGcaaalcounse1
The Univasi@ of Texas System Rez Whetha Ekiucation code section 54203 201 west seventh street violatcatheEqualFlotection clauseoftheUnited Austin,Texas 78701-2981 StatcsConstit&nbycxemptingfromdues,fees,
andcllarg~ataninstitution0fhighereducation onlythosev~whowaeTexascitksatthe thnetheyaltaedthescrvigandrelatad questions ww7) Dear Mr. Fambee:
You also ask whetha a de&m&&ion that section 54.203(a) is mumstitutional will be applied mtmspedvely. We are ultimately unable to BDIZWQ this question, although we provide the testwebdieveacourtwoulduseto~lvetheissue. Finally,youaskwhethexaparCcularstudent, artsidentvctenmwhowasnotacitizmofthisstatcatthetimeheentendtheservice,isentitledto a ret!md of the tuition and fees he has paid under protest. Because we cannot determine whether a dete&nation that the subsection is unconstitutional will be applied retrospectively, we cannot answatbisqu~oll. *2 (DM-466)
Mr.RayFarabee-Page2 Webeginbydcsaiithestatuteatissue. FMucationCcde&0n54203(a)rCquimsthe govaningboardofaninstitutionofhighereducationtocxemptcatainrcsidentv~ firomtbe paymaltofspecitiedcosts:
Thcgovaningboardofeachiostitutionofhighereducationshallacanpt the following pasons ti the paymeat of all dues, fees, and chargeq in&ding fees for lx?- courses but excluding pmp&y deposit fees,studentsc&xsfaes,andanyfecsorchargesforlod~boan&or c~ptmided&~~seabingrke~p~ciiizarrofTexar ot&?timetiteyenlacdthese?vi&?s indic&edandhaveresidedinTexas for at least tbe paiod of 12 months before the date of rqktmtionz (1)aUmmxsandhowablydkharg&manbasoftheamsdtkcc3of theU&!dSIafcsWhoSaVeddulillgthe~AmtiClmWarorduring WorldWarI;
(2) allnur6qmanbasoftheW~*sArmyAuxilky~munbas of the Women’s Auxiliq Vohmtcex Emagency Savicq and all lwnorablydischa@manbasofthearmedfomcsoftlleunitedstates whosavcddurhqWorldWarII...;
(3) allhonorablydischa@mcnandwom~oftheaxmedf&es.ofthe unitedstateswhoserved~the...Koreanwar,and (4)all&xsonswhowac~lydischargad~theaalledforctgof tbeUnitedstafesaftasavingonactivemilitaqduty...fermorethan 180daysandwhoservcdapottionoftheiractivedutydu& (A) theC!oldWar...;
(B) theVietnamera...;
(C) theChenadaandLebanonera...;
(D) thepanamaera...;
(E) thePersianGulfWar...;or
(F) any fitture nationd emergency declared in awxdance with federal law. @mphasis added-]
Thus,toreccivethe~~~~section54~O3(a),anhonorablydischargedvetaanwhosavad during one of the listed conflicts must satisfy two statutory residence mqGements. The first, a *3 Mr. Ray Farabcc - Page 3 @X468) Hoopav. llemdi& CLmy Asscrsor, 472 U.S.
‘seeso~~476US. at910-11 (aldcasescitsd0lereill)herein);
612,620 (1985) (aid cases c&d therein).
‘Hooper, 472 U.S. at 620 (quoting Russell v. Hodges, 470 F.2d 212,218 (2d Cir. 1972)).
Se Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986); Hooper. 472 U.S. 612 (1985).
‘476 U.S. 898 (1986).
‘hf. at900.
D. 2636 *4 w-468) Ataminim~9the~~comtheldthatthclawsatisaredidnotsrwivcevcarabional- basis suutiny. In gaxrs& a cksikation will smvive rafionsl&asis scrutiny if the statutory classifi&on mthnslly fiuthets a legithnate state purpose.” The Court found that the New York classification was irrationsl,” rejectiug the State’s four proffered justifications. First, the Court da&d thst the classification auxnqesNewYorkt&le&stoadistduringtimesofwar,pimsrily ~m,serviccpasonnelcouldbenrrc,atthctimehe~orsheeatasthcsavigthatthc
legislatme would amend the prefm to include vetersns of the conflict during which he or she serwA” ~~accordingtothe(=hicfJnstigthelaws¬distinguishbctweenvdaans whoenbtedvolm&ilyandthosewhowered&ed.” Seeond,theCourtrefibdNewYork’s txmta&nlhatthepre~partiaUycompeasates ddaltsforsavice dmingtimeofwsr~’ comtabgtbatNewYod~~whoeatatdthemUitary-nomoxenorlessthsnresidcat ofofhccstateawhoa&xedthemilbry..” ‘Ihird,theConrtdiqreedwiththeState*sargumentthat the preface encourages honorably dkhsrged, past-resident veterans to retum to New York to *5 W-468) settle“ WhiletheCbiefJusticceoncddthatthep&xatcemipfrthavedan~~Ceved theprefaumalsomightdimmageofhavetaaosfromsetlliaginthestate.17 Fourth,theCouxt dcnicdthatthe~~~a~groupofvetcranswhokeowlocal~whohave
leamedvaluableskillsinthemilitary,andwhowouh& coasequently, mid07 exceptional public servsn~‘* in the hut’s view, all tidatt veXaans possess those same atlriiuteq reganik of whaetheylesidedwhentheyaltaedthemilitary.’9
TheStatemsynotfi4vorestablishede3ida&overnewtidadsba8ed onthevicwthatthcstatemsyEalacareof’i~~’if~isdtfintdby . . -~byt!stabushingbonaiide~inthestate,
Etmethe~s’own*audmaynotbe~ * - ‘%iagainstsolelyontJle basisoffheiraaivalintheStateaftm[afixeddate].~ ‘%9eid.
“seeid
%efd.at915.
9.9 id.
=Id. at915-16 (quo6118 Hooper, 472U.S. at623); sea a&o id. at911.
z’472 U.S. 612 (1985).
==Id at 614.
==Seeidat616-17.
%i St 621-22.
=S.zid. 618-19.
p. 2638
Mr.RayFambee
%eoid.st62o.
“See Solo-Lopez, 476 U.S. at 915-16 (quoting Hooper 472 U.S. at 623).
‘?%e id at 914 (quo608 Hoopo; 472 U.S. at 621).
“824 P.2d 632 (Cat. 1992) (cnbaao), CUT. denied, 506 U.S. 984 (1992).
“Id. at 633; c$ Bmym v. Cbmadw, 770 F2d 773,776 (961 Cir. 1985), cert. de&d, 477 U.S. 903 (1986). In BvnyM~N~~courtofAppealsstruclcrJnncoostihrtional~~FourtccnthAmcndmcntsBqual
(coa8awd..) D. 2639 *7 (Dt4-468) - F’age 7
p. 2640 *8 (DM-468) WebdievcyourargumentthataTcxascorntwouldnotfollowDclMo~mustfaiL Inthe first plraoe. fedaal courts as well as state courts have jurisdiction ova federal constitutional questions. Saxmd, you coned that two opiuions of the Texas court of appeak, NIUEZ V. Awr)S9 aed~v.BomrlofRegenfpd~~H~JLstem,~suggcst~aTexascourtwould
appmach the question of constitutionality dif6krently thaa the Califhnia court. We disagree. In ~~~~~tfieconstitutionalityofaTcxsr~thatpamittcdaninsllredorthird-
parlyhbilityclaimanttocollecttlomthe knanceguamntyhdonlyiftheclaimantwasaTexas tidwtatthetimethe~laim~~’ Tltecomflikwedtbestatuteatisswtoonetbatasstresthat only residents enjoy sakes pmvided fix residents. 4 the court dcbmilked that the kiditiQIlS& statuttwsrrationally~tothtstatc’slcgitimatcintaestinprotsctingstate~~asopposed tortsidclltsofo~~fiomiusolvalt ituutraa Education Code se&m 54203(a), on the otha hand,pnwidesaba&ittoonlysomeresi~vctaans. Moreover~wequestionwhetherawurt wouldlindthattheststehasakghhateintasthmaldngthisdis6wtion~slsois~ withtheDelMontede4iaion. J.nSmithfhewmtdedadtzomhtionalastatutepamitCinga . .
nomesdartstadcatinas$tciastitutionofhigha~~tobcreclassifiedasaresidcaSrmdthus betligibleforresidentduitiontates,onlyaftathcstudcathadnsidcdinT~foratlcasttwelve mods.” By~to~stahdcatisstlciaSoto-Lopez,acoordingthewcourfthestatutcin ~“scdrstocstablishwfiicbstudcntsarcinfactbonafidtresidcntsofthestatcofT~n:~ it doesnot%ekto . ..limitthe~~eccordedtothecitizcasofTexasbasedonthelengthor timingoftheirn
?msqwdy, we believe a court would wnclude that Education Code section 54203(a) is lmtmsmionslbecauseitinvidiouslyorhrationally-~honorablydisch;argdd,
xsida&haaswhodidnotrcsidcinTexasatfhetimethey~thesavico. USiflgtherational- basisstaradard.webclicvta~would~~allofTcxas’~~ratianalil9ti~butwecan
think of none that the Supreme hut has not already de&& insufticient to justify the lo&latioo0ntisclaimodt5violatcthcF4pul~Claasc. Seekf.at640.
‘9884 s.w.2d 199 (lkx. App.-Austin 1994, no wit).
‘$74 s.w.2d7O.s (rez App.-Houston [lst Dist] 1994, wit cknicd), ccrt denied, 514 U.S. llll(l995). “Sac Nunrr. 884 S.W.2d at 204.
%eo id. at 203-04.
%%.9 id. at 204.
“See Smith, 874 S.W.2d at 708.
“Id.at711.
‘Vd.
D. 2641 *9 (DN468)
Mr.RayFambee section or only the Cxed-point nsjdeact xequhunwt Under tjte forma option, no veteran would be eligible for the tuition exemption. Convasely, under the latter opt& every honorably discharged. resident vet- would be eligible for the tuition exemption.
Webekveaunntwouldconcludethatthelegi&uminta&dthelhitationatissuehcrc tobcsmrablt~tfic~ofthesubscction,andthccomtaccordinglywoaldinvalidata onlytheofhdingflxed-pointxeaidweeroquircmcat Ike . * 0ftion54203(a)wouldbe left iutact, and the wmt thus would cxhd the tuition exemption to cvay honombly dkhrgcd vetasn who sstisfiw the statuhy durational residence requiremak~ In the 1959 kgishtion that *10 (DM-468) imerted the iixed-point tidewe requkmwt iuto the statutory predecessor to Bducation code section 54.203(a),% the legislature included a severability clause:
Ifauy...~ofthisAcG.sheldtobxawnsdtutional..., such decision shall not aEect the ranainhg portions of this Act. The Lcgislatum ha&y dw~thatitWMlldhavep~thisAct~each...part~~fdcspite thefactthatoneormore...parts...bedw~unw~~o~...J’ Idea& we believe this waclusion is absolutely wnsis@t with the legislature’s purposes in aeating lhe tuition exemption Prior to 1959, the statutory pxhcessor to section 54.203(a) sought to~allhonorablydischargedvetaanswfiow~citizensofTexasforthcirsaviwtothc na@mldfbrthedismp.6onsavice inthemilitarycaused. Forexample,whmthelegislatum$irst education“without long aclays” In 1943 the legislatum included honorably dkhged, reaidwt WorldWarII~~citingthesupremesaaificestheseseniccmwandwomcnhadmadeand th&diSNptCdliVW:
Thcfactthat~~a~maayofthcmcrnbasofthcUnitedStates AnnedForceswbhavealreadybecnkilledhctionaudagreatmanywho havebewdi&qedthnactivesaviwbecauseofinjmiesmccivedin a&on,orwhohavebeendis&qedbecauseofsicknessorilhesswhilein WtiVCWViWdllOWdcsirttOattWdsEatetducational~OllSOfhighCS kamingsndwntinuehtheeducalional~hwhi&theywaewgagcd atthetimeofeataingintoaotivcsavice,aedthcfrnthafactthat[~tion excmptionspreswtlyerenotpmvidedthemnew&atcsthis amendments Siiy, in 1953 the legishhe included sll honmably dkchar& resident Koxwn war veteran? bccause”agreatmanypersonswhohavcsavedinthc[KoreanW~]have~dischargad~m
‘%ee Act of July 15.1959,5661 Lq., 2d CS., ch 12, Q 2.1959 Tex. GUL Laws 99,100-01.
“‘Id. 5 4.1959 Tax. Gen. Laws 99,101.
%t.eAcizqqmwedUar.28.1923.381hLq&RS,ch. 147.@ 1.3,1923Tcx.Gen.Laws316.316-17. “SW Act of Apr. 29.1943.4861 Leg., RR, ch. 337,s 1.1943 Tex. Gm. Laws 568.568-69.
%Id. 0 2,1943 Tex. Ga. Laws 568,569.
“See Act of Max. 24,1953,53d Leg., RS., ch. 55,s 1.1953 Tcx. Gem. Laws 75,75-76.
Mr.FCayFarabw - Page 11 m4w
You next question whetbcx our wncltion, tbat a wurt would 6nd that section 54.203(a) -onallyorcludes t?omthetuitionexanptionhonorablydis&aq@residwtvetaanswho WQC not Texas citizens at the time they artatd the service, appliw prospectively only or retrospectivcy as well as prospectively. Ultimately, we an? unable to resolve .$is question. We believe, howeva, that a wurt would resolve the question by applying the test the Texas Supreme Cant srticulated in Wesely Energy Cap. v. Jennings?’
To de&mine whc&ex, and to what extent, a judicially modified rule will applymhuwt%y,awuctshould~(l)whethcrtheholdingdecided anissueofiirst~onnotclearly -bypriordecisions;0 whethal&oa&eopaationwillfmthaorretanltheho1dinginqucsti0~ and(3)whefhezaretmac6veapplicationwuldpmduwsubsQ&l inequitable results.%
~this~judicialmodificationstoastatnttmayapplypraspectivclyonlyorretrospcctively tt8 well ss pmpectivel~ ftnkkm, the judicisl modifications may apply Hmspe&@ to the dauhecomtdeans~applicationjust. H~forexampl~awmtmaydctamkti section 54203(a), mod&d to delete the iixedw residence requhwnent, should apply rctrospcctivcly to 1959, the date the fixed-point residww rcquimmwt was aaoptad; to 1985, the yea of the H&per decision; to 1986, the year of the &to-Lopez dwisim or to some other date. Weigbh@~jusfiwofapartiwlardateofmtxspe&veapplkationistbeprovinwofawuRnot thisoffiw. Moreover,cachofthctbmcpnmg~ofthe W~seJytesthwolvc~thewnsiderationoffact questi- which this offiw is not apipped to resolve”
~wecarmotdetamine~~aawnclusionthatscction~~3(a)is~~o~ will be applied aely, we cannot de&mine whetha an honorably discharged veteran who meets section 54203(a)% durational tidence requkement is entitled to a refund of tuition he paid uada protest.@ We thexefore are unable to answer your last question.
%Id. 5 3.1953 Ta Gcn. Laws 75.76.
“736 S.W.2d 624,628 (Tex, 1987).
sI,L(citingscgnrtv. Sqmt, 649 S.W.2d 614 612 flex. 1983). Cal denied,464U.S. 894 (1983)). A federal ~~lpplya~~~todctenaine~thcconclusianthatEdoationcodesection~43O3(a) &ould apply pmpcctively or rctmq&bely. See Chevmn v. Huson, 404 U.S. 97.10548 (1971).
~~,cg.,AttomcyGmessl~inionsDM-98(1992)at3,H-56(1973)at3.M-187(1968)at3, O-2911 (1940) at 2.
‘OButseo Wesdy, 736 S.WL?d at 628 (quoting &null v. Demo, 388 U.S. 293.301(1967)) (notinp that party
(wasaacd...) p. 2644
Mr. Ray Farabee - Page 12 (W-468)
SUMMARY A wut cxsmh&g Education Code section 54.203(a), which exempts fmmthepaymcntoftuitionaIlhonomblydis&arg~ residcntvetaans who were Texas citizens at the time they adktcd, probably would lind that the statute unwnstitu6onslly diskham against honorably dkhqed, rcsidentvdaaoswhodidwt~~inTQcaswheathcycatacdthcsavice.
To remedy the unwostitutionslity, the court probably would strike only tbe fixed+lointlGsidatcerequiranenfthaebyorteradingtuitionexemptontoall honorably discharged, resident vetemns.
A wurt probably would evahute the extent to which section 54203(a), judicially modi%d.to delete the unconsthutional tied-point residaax xquhwna&,shouidbeappliedm&qnxtkelyusingatJmxqrttest. First, the court would crcsminewhctbatheholdiugdecidedaaissueoffirst by prior decisions. Second, tbe court impression not clearly f-owed would consider whetha mtmspe&ve opemtion will fortha or retard the holdirg in question. Third, the wart would de&rmh~ whetha a xetrospective spplicition could pmduce sobscantial inequitable results. A wurtwoulddecidewhethaanhonorablydkkgedvetaanwhomeets section 54203(a)% durstional residence requhement is &tied to a refund oftuitionpaidnndaprotcstllff4~ew~hadestablishedthecxtentto which the judicial modithtion of section 54.203(a) would apply retmspectively.
DAN MORALES AttomeyGenemlofTexas JORGE VEGA
First Assist& Attorney General
SARAH J. SHIRLEY
Chair, opinion Committee
Pmpared by Kymberly K. Oltrogge
-tAttorneyGeneral