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

Heading: The Majority's Misapplication of Graham

Text: 183 As indicated above, Graham held first, that we must subject a state's classifications based on alienage to close judicial scrutiny. 403 U.S. at 372, 91 S.Ct. 1848. The Court went on to hold that  [a]n additional reason  a state statute might not withstand constitutional scrutiny emerges from the area of federal-state relations, citing conflict with overriding national policies where the federal government has occupied the field with its superior authority. Id. at 376-78, 91 S.Ct. 1848 (emphasis supplied). As mentioned above, the plaintiffs do not argue that the statute violates the preemption prong of Graham. Plaintiffs' arguments stem from the discrete strict scrutiny holding of Graham. 184 The majority correctly concludes that Mathews does not apply, because [u]nlike Mathews, here we have a state-administered program.  Maj. op. at 1251-52 (emphasis supplied). While holding that a rational basis test applies to federal policy regarding an alien's eligibility for welfare programs, the Court recognized that a similar division by a State of the category of persons who are not citizens of that State into subcategories of United States citizens and aliens has no apparent justification. Mathews, 426 U.S. at 85, 96 S.Ct. 1883. As the majority indicates, the circuit cases applying rational basis to a federal statutory classification of aliens, as administered by a state, routinely recognize that the strict scrutiny standard does apply to Fourteenth Amendment equal protection challenges to a state's classification of aliens. Rodriguez v. United States, 169 F.3d 1342, 1347 (11th Cir.1999) (citing Graham ); Aleman v. Glickman, 217 F.3d 1191, 1199 n. 5 (9th Cir.2000) (recognizing that Mathews noted equal protection analysis ... involves significantly different considerations [when] it concerns the relationship between aliens and the States rather than between aliens and the Federal Government) (quoting Mathews, 426 U.S. at 84-85, 96 S.Ct. 1883) (alterations in original); City of Chicago v. Shalala, 189 F.3d 598, 605 (7th Cir.1999) (`The States enjoy no power with respect to the classification of aliens.') (quoting Plyler, 457 U.S. at 225, 102 S.Ct. 2382); see also Lewis v. Thompson, 252 F.3d 567, 583 (2d Cir.2001) (plaintiffs do not contest that rational basis scrutiny applies to federal classification of eligibility for welfare benefits to the extent that they are asserting harm to themselves). 185