Opinion ID: 164228
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: PRWORA Authorized the Enactment of S.B. 03-176

Text: 205 Third, the defendant argues that Title IV of PRWORA authorized Colorado's enactment of S.B. 03-176. To apply separate standards of review to states that act pursuant to PRWORA would lead to an absurd construction of PRWORA. Aple's Br. at 11. The benefits Congress delineated as optional become mandatory. Id. 206 The Supreme Court rejected a similar argument put forth by Arizona in Graham. In Part IV of its opinion, the Court considered, and rejected, Arizona's argument that the durational requirement was actually authorized by federal law. The Court stated that [o]n its face, the statute does not affirmatively authorize, much less command, the States to adopt durational residency requirements or other eligibility restrictions applicable to aliens. 403 U.S. at 381, 91 S.Ct. 1848. 207 Under this theory, there would be few if any limits to a state's ability to discriminate against legal immigrants once given the option. In Graham, the Court considered the legislative history of the Congressional acts at issue, and rejected this theory. The Court noted that to the extent Congress sought to authorize discriminatory treatment of aliens at the option of the States ... serious constitutional questions are presented.  Graham, 403 U.S. at 382, 91 S.Ct. 1848 (emphasis supplied). 208 In addition, Congress itself anticipated that state laws that alter legal aliens' eligibility for jointly funded benefit programs enacted pursuant to § 1607 would be subject to strict scrutiny. Section 8 U.S.C. § 1601(7) states: 209 With respect to the State authority to make determinations concerning the eligibility of qualified aliens for public benefits in this chapter, a State that chooses to follow the Federal classification in determining the eligibility of such aliens for public assistance shall be considered to have chosen the least restrictive means available for achieving the compelling governmental interest of assuring that aliens be self-reliant in accordance with national immigration policy. 210 Id. Congress clearly anticipated that state statutes would be challenged, and hoped that in explaining Graham and enunciating that such state policies would satisfy Graham's strict scrutiny, the state programs might survive strict scrutiny. 4 See H.R.REP. No. 104-651, at 1445-46. But in our constitutional structure it is for the courts to say what the law is, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 177, 2 L.Ed. 60 (1803), and, [a]lthough the Federal Government admittedly has broad constitutional power to determine what aliens shall be admitted to the United States, the period they remain, and the terms and conditions of their naturalization, Congress does not have the power to authorize the individual States to violate the Equal Protection Clause.  Graham, 403 U.S. at 382, 91 S.Ct. 1848 (emphasis supplied). As a result, S.B. 03-176 would be still subject to strict scrutiny.