Filed Date: May 27, 1975
Closed Date: Oct. 31, 1979
Clearinghouse coding complete
In 1976, university students whose parents had nonimmigrant alien G-4 visas (visas issued to nonimmigrant aliens who were officers or employees of certain international organizations and to members of their immediate families) brought a class action against the University of Maryland in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, challenging the university's admission and fees policy denying them in-state tuition status. The University contended that G-4 visa holders could not acquire Maryland domicile necessary for "in-state" tuition because the visa holder was incapable of demonstrating the intent to live permanently or indefinitely in Maryland. Plaintiffs contended that the policy violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The District Court (Judge James R. Miller, Jr.) granted partial summary judgment in favor of students finding that the university's "in-state" tuition policy created an "irrebuttable presumption of non-domicile" which violated the Due Process Clause. The Court enjoined the university from enforcing the policy with respect to the named plaintiffs and members of their class. Moreno v. University of Maryland, 420 F.Supp. 541 (D.Md. 1976). The university appealed. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed, Moreno v. Elkins, 556 F.2d 573 (4th Cir.1977), and the Supreme Court granted certiorari, Elkins v. Moreno, 434 U.S. 888, 98 S.Ct. 260, 54 L.Ed.2d 173 (1977), and then certified that the Maryland state court answer a question of state law: Could G-4 aliens become domiciliaries of Maryland? Elkins v. Moreno, 435 U.S. 647, 98 S.Ct. 1338, 55 L.Ed.2d 614 (1978). The state court found that G-4 aliens could become domiciliaries of Maryland. Toll v. Moreno, 284 Md. 425, 397 A.2d 1009 (1979).
While the appeal was pending, the Board of Regents of the University of Maryland issued a resolution which purported to clarify its reasons for denying in-state status to nonimmigrant aliens. In light of the University's clarifying resolution, the Supreme Court vacated the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals judgment and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. Toll v. Moreno, 441 U.S. 458, 99 S.Ct. 2044, 60 L.Ed.2d 354 (1979).
On remand, the District Court (Judge Miller) found that the state university's policy and clarification of that policy violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Supremacy Clause. Moreno v. Toll, 480 F.Supp. 1116 (D.Md.1979). The Court of Appeals affirmed, Moreno v. University of Maryland, 645 F.2d 217 (4th Cir. 1981), and the Supreme Court again granted certiorari. Toll v. Moreno, 454 U.S. 815, 102 S.Ct. 91, 70 L.Ed.2d 83 (1981). The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the policy violated the Supremacy Clause and that the Eleventh Amendment did not preclude the District Court from ordering the university to issue refunds to class members who had been denied in-state tuition while the case was on appeal. Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1, 102 S.Ct. 2977, 73 L.Ed.2d 563 (1982).
We have no further information on the case.
Summary Authors
Dan Dalton (1/3/2008)
Brennan, William Joseph Jr. (District of Columbia)
Cole, Harry A. (Maryland)
Bernstein, Raymond M. (District of Columbia)
Bieke, James R. (District of Columbia)
Burch, Francis B. (Maryland)
Brennan, William Joseph Jr. (District of Columbia)
Cole, Harry A. (Maryland)
Digges, Dudley (Maryland)
Eldridge, John C. (Maryland)
Ervin, Samuel James III (North Carolina)
Levine, Irving (Maryland)
Miller, James Rogers Jr. (Maryland)
Murphy, Robert C. (Maryland)
Orth, Charles E. (Maryland)
Russell, Robert Lee (Georgia)
Smith, Marvin H. (Maryland)
Winter, Harrison Lee (Maryland)
Last updated March 25, 2024, 3:06 a.m.
Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.State / Territory: Maryland
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: May 27, 1975
Closing Date: Oct. 31, 1979
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
University of Maryland students who were denied "in-state" tuition because their parents held nonimmigrant alien G-4 visas.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Granted
Defendants
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex Parte Young (Federal) or Bivens
Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 8 U.S.C. §§ 1101 et seq.
Constitutional Clause(s):
Federalism (including 10th Amendment)
Available Documents:
U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Order Duration: 1979 - None
Issues
General:
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Immigration/Border: