Opinion ID: 164228
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Fiscal Integrity

Text: 194 First, the defendant cites Colorado's vital economic interest in promulgating S.B. 03-176, arguing that the measure is necessary to balance the $850 million budget deficit. The State estimates that it will save $5.9 million (or 0.67% of the total $869 million in the State's budget deficit) annually by eliminating medical coverage to legal aliens. 195 In applying a rational basis test to the pro-alien statute at issue in Doe, the Massachusetts Supreme Court clearly considered the purpose and the clearly noninvidious intent behind [the program's] promulgation when it applied the rational basis test. See Maj. op. at 1254 (quoting Doe, 773 N.E.2d at 414) (emphasis supplied). Here, we only have the self-professed state interest of fiscal integrity, which has been squarely rejected by the United States Supreme Court: 196 [A] State has a valid interest in preserving the fiscal integrity of its programs. It may legitimately attempt to limit its expenditures, whether for public assistance, public education, or any other program. But a State may not accomplish such a purpose by invidious distinctions between classes of its citizens. The saving of welfare costs cannot justify an otherwise invidious classification. 197 Graham, 403 U.S. at 374-75, 91 S.Ct. 1848 (internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis supplied). The impact upon the State is not very significant in comparison to the irreparable harm that would be caused to those denied coverage. Kansas Hosp. Ass'n v. Whiteman, 835 F.Supp. 1548, 1553 (D.Kan.1993). Furthermore, [t]he state is in a much better position to absorb the budgetary impact of delayed implementation of the amendment as compared to individual plaintiffs. Id. 3 Colorado's suggestion that the preservation of its fiscal integrity, through a projected savings of $5.9 million, warrants the upholding of S.B. 03-176 is not sustainable. 198