In 1979, the Supreme Court ruled in the case of Toll v. Moreno that a university’s policy of denying “in-state” status to non-immigrant G-4 aliens and their dependents was unconstitutional. The court determined that the authority to determine who can enter the United States lies with the federal government, not individual states. Since the university’s policy contradicted what Congress had permitted for G-4 aliens, it was deemed invalid. However, one judge expressed dissent, arguing that the state should have the autonomy to establish its own regulations regarding education.
The United States Supreme Court decided the legal case Toll v. Moreno in 1979. The case involved a policy at the University of Maryland that denied “in-state” status to domiciled non-immigrant G-4 aliens and their dependents. The Supreme Court ruled that this policy was invalid under the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The University of Maryland had a policy of granting preferential treatment for tuition and fees to students with “in-state” status, but this policy excluded nonimmigrant aliens. When the University used this policy to deny in-state tuition to G-4 dependents residing in the state, the respondents filed a class action lawsuit against the University and its President. The Supreme Court found that the state policy, as applied to the G-4 aliens and their dependents, violated the supremacy clause. The Court emphasized that the federal government has the authority to determine which aliens should be admitted to the United States and to regulate foreign affairs, while the states do not have this authority. Therefore, when a state regulation discriminates against lawfully admitted aliens and imposes additional burdens not intended by Congress, it is not allowed. Congress had allowed G-4 aliens, who were employees of international organisations and their immediate families, to enter the country and establish domicile. The federal government had also granted tax exemption to these G-4 visa holders as an incentive for their immigration. However, the University justified their policy based on the financial impact of the respondents’ parents not paying taxes. The majority of the Supreme Court found that the University’s “in-state” policy went against Congress’s intent and was therefore not allowed.
– Toll v. Moreno is a landmark Supreme Court case that dealt with the constitutionality of residency requirements for welfare benefits.
– The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Toll, stating that the residency requirements violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
– The residency requirements mandated that individuals must have resided in a state for at least one year before becoming eligible for welfare benefits.
– The Supreme Court found that the residency requirements discriminated against newly arrived residents, denying them equal protection under the law.
– The case led to the invalidation of residency requirements for welfare benefits, making it easier for newly arrived residents to access such assistance.
– Yes, the case established a precedent that residency requirements in other areas, such as voting or education, could also be subject to constitutional scrutiny.
– The case reinforced the principle that the Equal Protection Clause prohibits states from treating different groups of people unequally without a rational basis.
– While the case invalidated the specific residency requirements in question, states may still impose reasonable residency requirements as long as they do not violate the Equal Protection Clause.
– Yes, there were dissenting opinions in the case, with some justices arguing that the residency requirements were justified to prevent welfare fraud and protect state resources.
– The case further solidified the principle that laws treating different groups of people differently must have a rational basis and cannot be based on arbitrary or discriminatory factors.
This site contains general legal information but does not constitute professional legal advice for your particular situation. Persuing this glossary does not create an attorney-client or legal adviser relationship. If you have specific questions, please consult a qualified attorney licensed in your jurisdiction.
This glossary post was last updated: 17th April 2024.
To help you cite our definitions in your bibliography, here is the proper citation layout for the three major formatting styles, with all of the relevant information filled in.
- Page URL:https://dlssolicitors.com/define/toll-v-moreno/
- Modern Language Association (MLA):Toll V. Moreno. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. May 09 2024 https://dlssolicitors.com/define/toll-v-moreno/.
- Chicago Manual of Style (CMS):Toll V. Moreno. dlssolicitors.com. DLS Solicitors. https://dlssolicitors.com/define/toll-v-moreno/ (accessed: May 09 2024).
- American Psychological Association (APA):Toll V. Moreno. dlssolicitors.com. Retrieved May 09 2024, from dlssolicitors.com website: https://dlssolicitors.com/define/toll-v-moreno/
Our team of professionals are based in Alderley Edge, Cheshire. We offer clear, specialist legal advice in all matters relating to Family Law, Wills, Trusts, Probate, Lasting Power of Attorney and Court of Protection.
All author posts