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

Heading: The Twin Holdings of Graham v. Richardson

Text: 172 It is well-recognized that Graham established two distinct constitutional hurdles for state legislation discriminating against legal immigrants: (a) Part II of the opinion, which mandates that state legislation must satisfy strict scrutiny, 403 U.S. at 372, 91 S.Ct. 1848 (Aliens as a class are a prime example of a `discrete and insular' minority for whom such heightened judicial solicitude is appropriate.) (internal citations omitted); and (b) Part III of the opinion, which holds that state legislation must not encroach upon exclusive federal power, id. at 380, 91 S.Ct. 1848 (Since such laws encroach upon exclusive federal power, they are constitutionally impermissible.). See also Toll, 458 U.S. at 30, 102 S.Ct. 2977 (O'Connor, J., concurring) (recognizing the encroachment of federal power as an alternative ground for striking the state statute). The twin holdings of the Court are also apparent from the Court's vote: the Court unanimously held that state legislation cannot encroach upon exclusive federal power. Justice Harlan did not join the Court's equal protection ruling (Part II of the opinion).
173 In Graham, the Court considered a Pennsylvania law that made noncitizens ineligible to receive public assistance and an Arizona statute that imposed a durational residency requirement for welfare benefits on aliens but not on citizens. Like Colorado's S.B. 03-176, the Arizona statute served to discriminate only within the class of aliens: Aliens who met the durational residency requirement were entitled to welfare benefits. Nyquist, 432 U.S. at 8-9, 97 S.Ct. 2120 (discussing Graham ). The Court nonetheless subjected the statutes to strict scrutiny and both statutes were held unconstitutional. Graham, 403 U.S. at 372, 91 S.Ct. 1848.
174 As an alternative ground, the [ Graham ] Court also declared the law invalid as an encroachment on federal power. Toll, 458 U.S. at 30, 102 S.Ct. 2977 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The plaintiffs do not challenge that the federal preemption holding of Part III of the Graham opinion is not at issue here. Colorado is not imposing auxiliary burdens upon the entrance or residence of aliens, because it is acting pursuant to federal authorization in 8 U.S.C. § 1612(b). Graham, 403 U.S. at 379, 91 S.Ct. 1848; accord DeCanas v. Bica, 424 U.S. 351, 358 n. 6, 96 S.Ct. 933, 47 L.Ed.2d 43 (1976) (discussing preemption and noting that state regulation not congressionally sanctioned that discriminates against aliens lawfully admitted to the country is impermissible if it imposes additional burdens not contemplated by Congress). As such, we should focus on the strict scrutiny holding in Part II of Graham.