.

**I ’**  **PY MAlTOX**  **1 ornry**  **General**

**j >rOlW** 

**COWI SUlldl~**  **I >.** **sol 1254**  **hmh. TX.** **78711.2545 i** **” J475-2501** 

**, .X** **91@874-1387 :.** **.Dcop*r****512l47m288**

**t3** **sroadw*y.****suite 312**  **I bbOCk.TX.** **79401-3479 hat7474232** 

**00 N.** **Teal, suulte** 

**s L.;AIlml.** **TX. ml-15.5**  **512me24547**
**~AMelnflua.sulteU)O San** **Antsnlo. lx**  **782052197**

**= ‘** **2/2254101** 

# TheAttorney General ofTexas

December 21, 1984

Ronorable Uilhelmina Delco chairmen Higher Education Comittee Texas Eousc of Reprerentatives P. 0. Sox2910 Auatin. Texas 78769 Opinion No.34-267
Re: Whether foreign nationals maybe constitutionally charged a higher rate **of** tuition at a state university than ether nonresidents
Dear Representative Iwlco:
You have requested an oplulon from **this** office regarding the constitutionality of different rates of tuition **at** Texas public institutions of higher education based on national origin. Your concern is whether zbe *state mayconstitutionally charge a rate of tuition. at **such** institutions to one class of students who are not Texas residentd vh1l.c charging a higher rate of tuition to another class .of studenta, whoalso are not Texas residents, simply because the latter class is composedof foreign nationals and the former class le composed of United States citizens. You have not submitted a specific proposal or Idraft, and thus, ve vi11 discuss **the** question in the abstract.
rhe Education Cide provides different ratea of tuitfon **for** students **vho,,are** rc!sldents of Texas and for students vho are not residents of rexas. 

### Durdiscussion IS limited to students whodonot qualify,.for~the Texan reside& tuition. Presently, the Education Code provides .that tuittnr for students .who are citizens 

### of **.any** country other than the United States la the samaes tuition required of other nonresidents of Texes who are citltens of **the** United States. See Rduc. Code 154.051, subaeci. (b). (c), **(h). (I).**  **-**

**The Fourteenth**  Amendment to the **United States**  **~Constitutlon provides**  **that ‘** **no** shall deny **to** any person vithln **its jurisdiction**  

# ,ths l **q~::~:otection of**  **the** lava. **The-~amandmant** apeaks **of ‘** **$ersona ”**  **:rather than**  **“ eltizena.** **” It**  has long been settled that **the** 

### guarsntea of equal protection -oxtede to ell perrone~vithin the territorial juriedic:t:ion 

### of a state~lrrespectlre **of** citisenshlp. See Ambachv. **,Norvick.~** 641U.S. 68 (1979); Yick Uov. **Ropklne, Sherix**  llg.U.S. 356 (1886). **An**alien **who ia**  **present within**  **the boundaries**  of the state ie a person vithln the l&sdiction ,of the ‘atete. See ;;;;I;, v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (19825; reh’g denied. 458 U.S. 1131

n. 1191Honorable Wilhelnine Delco - 1’al;e2 (3~467)

The equal protection clause does not prohibit all legislative classifications. In reviewing l.egislat1on under the equal protection clause, the Court’s usual approach has beena two-tiered standerd. If a etetute infringes on e fundamental right or creates an inherently suspect classification. the **swtute** is subject to strict judicial~ scrutiny which requires the st,ate to estrbliah a compelling interest **in** Its enactment. To do so, the state muet demonstrate that its purpose or interest is boc:h constitutionally permissible and subetantial and that its use DCthe classificetion is necessary ro accomplish its purpose. See In ceGriffiths. 413U.S. 717(1973). If a statute does not affecra?irndamental right or create a suspect classification, the statute la accorded a presumption **of** constitutionality that is not clisturbed unless the enactment rests on grounds wholly irrelevant to the achievement of a legitimate stete objective. The latter standard frequently is referred to as the rational basis test. SeeMcGowanv. Maryland, 366U.S. 420 (1961). **A** - -- person challenging a classificc~tion judged by the rational basis test must establish that the classification does not bear a fair relationship to, a legitimate public purpose, whereas a state 

### must justify **a** suspect clasaificrtion by shoving a compelling state Interest. See Plyler v. Doe,wp”.
TheUaited States SupremeC:ourthas found classification based on race or alienage inherently suspect and subject to strict judicial **ecrutlny.** Set In re Griffiths, supra: SugarPan v. Dougell. 413 U.S. 634 (1973); 403 U.S. 365 (1971): Arredondo v. Brockette. 648P.2d 425 (5th Clr. 1981). Wedonot believe that your question requires adetermlnat:ion of ‘theappropriate standard bywhich the courts would test the constitutionality of the tuition rates that youdescribe. It is our opinion that the 

### ratesin queetion would not **pass** either test. The constitutionality under the equal protection clause of aach statute is judged on its ladividusl provleione and facts, but me**are** not aware af Taxas interests which ve believe the court. would find to be a rational justification for enacting higher tuition retes for foreign nat,Lonals than **for** United States citizens. neither of which qualify for Texas resident tuition. Cf. Plyler v. - Doe. LIUPT(L. - It in **our** jud8ment that, **in** the absence of e rational basis for sucha distinction, 

### acourt would hold that discri.minat1on against one group solely because It is colaposed of eliens would be arbitrary and unreasonable. **In** 1982. the office of the Attorney General of Tenneesee was asked whether it is constitutional to eesees different fees for public colleges basc!d,on a student’e national origin. The **Attorney** General of Tenneesec! determined that euch aliene would be coneidered by the courts tc be a euspect class under the equal protection clause. See **Attorney** General of Tenn. Opinion No. 82-194 (1982). Theoplnionstatee 

## tt.et

p. 1192

.

### .

Honorable Uilhclmina Delco - Page 3 (Jr4-267)

Whena suspect class is involved, the classification is ‘inherently suspect and subject to clone judicial scrutiny.’ Grahamv. Richardson, suprs. 403U.S. at 272. Asageneral proposition. this office is **not aware**  of any circumstances which would! compel t,hestate to set a different fee rate 

### for ali,en Etudents than for other out-of-state 6tudenl:s. In **the absence**  of such 6 compelling purpose, t:heFourteenth Amendmentwould becontravened.
This office, too, has stated .that rertrictions based on alienage cannot be upheld unless the s'tst@ csn prove that the restriction is necessary **to** accomplish a coapelling State purpose. Attorney General Opinion H-1140 (1978) (unconsl::Ltutlonal to xe6trict license a6Private EmploymentAgency operator to citizens of the U.S.).
In addition to the Fourteenth Amendmentof the United **States** Constitution. the **Constitution** of Texas guarantees equality of rights to all persons. SeeTex. Const. art. I. 53. Article I. **section** 38 rpecifically declares that eq&nllty under the lawmaynot be denied or abridged because of 6ex. race, color , creed, or natioual origin.
Your inquiry.raises **other** Issues in addition to the issue of equal protection. For instance, no state mayconduct an independent foreign policy. It haa long be66 settled that the United States is a 6ingle nation for purpose6 of foreign affairs. See ChaeChanPing v. p.s.. 130U.S. 581 (1889). ‘Thepower to dealwith foreign nations rests In the president, whoconducts our foreign relation6 through the State Department, ambassadc%6 and consuls, and others whom he appoints. U.S. v. **Hooker,** 607 F.2d 286, 289 (9th Cir. 1979). cert. denied, 445U.S. 905 (1980). Wedonot believe that **the courts**  **vould** allow a 6tate **statute** to **6tibtly** affect **international** relations or national foreign policy. lice 26cha~ig v. Mllar. 389 **U.S. 429**  (1968). **m--**

Congress has the exclusive power to control imigration and **the** admission of aliens to the Uniied States, and a state msynot **imp066** irmigration control6 ou **61ims** that .the federal government has **chosen to**  **admit.** In Attoroey General Opinion H-157 (1973). this office said **that**

The **Dower** to control **lminration** is vested solely in Congress. Fong Yuekg V. U.S., 149 U.S. 698, 713 (1893). The statutory scheme enactcd by Congres:s is pervasive. anda state may **not** enact statutes or regulations **which** curtail. interfere **with or**  conflict with the comorehensive Congre66ional program. Hines V. Davfdiwits, 312 U.S. 52 (1941).

p. 1193Honorable Wilhelmln6 Delco - Page 4 (J&267)

A state may. In appropriate circumstances, limit the participa**tion** of noncitizen6 **in** the stat6’s political and governmental functions. See Toll v. Morena,. 458U.S. 1, ,Footnote 17 (1982). and ca6es cited therein. It i6 ou::opinion, however, that if challenged, A state low which **charges** 6 higher rate of tuitfon (It state univer6itie6 to **foreign** nationals than the rate charged other nonresident6 of Texas would not beupheld by the courts.
SUMMA.RY -- **A** state law which charges a higher rat6 **of** tuition At state lnst:ltutian6 of higher education to foreign nationals than the rate charged other nonresidents of Texas would raise serious constitutional issue*;, euch ~6 the issue of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendmantto the United **State6** Constitution and under the Texas Constitution and interference with the federal gave-nt’s exclusive right to control foreign policy andthe iPrmlg:,ation andadmisiion of aliens to the United States. I

Attorney General of Texas

DAVIDIL.RICBARDS EXeCUtiVeAEEiEtErtt **Attorney** &!r;erAl
BICXGILPIN Chairman. Opinion CoQIttee Preparad byNancy **Sutton** A66istint **Attorney** Getter61
APPROVED: OPINIONCOHMIlTEE
Rick Gilpin, Chairpan Swan Garrimoo~ TonyGuillory JimMoellinger Jennifer Riggs Nancy Sutton

p. 1194