Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): problem. The state laws at issue in Takaha-shi and Graham were found to interfere with the federal government’s regulation of immigration despite the fact that, as here, neither law resulted in the removal or inadmissibility of any aliens. 16 . 66 Stat 163, as amended, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq. 17 . Pub.L. No. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996). 18 . It is clear, therefore, that PRWORA does not consider mere admission or attendance at a public post-secondary institution to he a public benefit. Otherwise, Virginia would be required to deny admission to illegal aliens, unless the state affirmatively enacted a law allowing for their admission into public colleges and universities. 19 . But see League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson, 997 F.Supp. 1244, 1256 (C.D.Cal.1997) ("LULAC II”) (<HOLDING>). LULAC II is neither controlling nor 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that pursuant to prwora and iirira congress had evinced its intention to occupy the field of alien eligibility for postsecondary education and invalidating on federal preemption grounds section 8 of californias proposition 187 which denied public postsecondary education to immigrants not lawfully present (B) holding that exhaustion was not required under a federal education statute where the gravamen of the complaint was not that the plaintiff had been denied the type of education the statute guarantees and hence the relief sought was not available through the statutory appeals process (C) holding that sc const art xi  3 which requires the general assembly to provide for the maintenance and support of a system of free public education guarantees only a minimally adequate education and does not call for this court to dictate what programs are to be used in this states public schools (D) holding that it is impermissible to dismiss a teacher for openly criticizing the board of education on its allocation of school funds between athletics and education and its methods of informing taxpayers about the need for additional revenue (E) holding that postsecondary education support orders are modified pursuant to the statute governing child support modification
Output (English): holding that exhaustion was not required under a federal education statute where the gravamen of the complaint was not that the plaintiff had been denied the type of education the statute guarantees and hence the relief sought was not available through the statutory appeals process