Document: 441 U.S. 458 99 S.Ct. 2044 60 L.Ed.2d 354 John S. TOLL, President, University of Maryland, petitioner,v.Juan Carlos MORENO et al No. 77-154 Supreme Court the United States April 30, 1979 On Writ Certiorari to Appeals for Fourth Circuit. 1979. PER CURIAM. 1 This decision supplements Elkins v. Moreno, 435 647, 98 1338, 55 614 (1978), decided last Term. Respondents in represented a class nonimmigrant alien residents Maryland who either held or were financially dependent upon person "G-4 visa," that is, visa granted "officers, employees . international organizations, and members their immediate families" pursuant 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(15)(G)(iv). not "in-state" status tuition purposes at because they conclusively presumed by be nondomiciliaries State. brought suit against its alleging University's failure grant respondents in-state violated various federal laws, Due Process Equal Protection Clauses Fourteenth Amendment, Supremacy Clause. The District on ground procedures determining principles established Vlandis Kline, 412 441, 93 2230, 37 63 (1973), affirmed. Moreno 420 F.Supp. 541 (Md.1976), affirmance order, 556 F.2d 573 (CA4 1977). 2 In supra, we "[b]ecause petitioner makes domicile 'paramount' policy consideration respondents' contention is can domiciled but are unable do so, this case squarely within as limited Salfi those situations which State 'purport[s] concerned with [domicile, but] same time den[ies] one seeking meet test [domicile] opportunity show factors clearly bearing issue.' Weinberger Salfi, 422 [749,] 771, 95 2457, 45 522 [1975]." U.S., 660, S.Ct., 1346. Since applicability depended whether could fact become domiciliaries, certified, Subtit. 6 Tit. 12 Md.Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code (1974), following question Appeals: 3 "Are persons residing hold named 4 under 1101(a)(15)(G)(iv) (1976 ed.), holding such visa, incapable matter state law becoming domiciliaries Maryland?" 668-669, 1338. 5 June 23, 1978, approximately two months after Elkins,* Board Regents unanimously adopted "A Resolution Clarifying Purposes, Meaning, Application Policy Determination In-State Status Admission, Tuition, Charge-Differential Insofar It Denies Nonimmigrant Aliens." resolution, stated, inter alia: "Purposes Interests Policy. finds declares approved September 21, 1973, insofar it denies aliens, serves number substantial interests, conforms generally otherwise applicable definition common law, including to: 7 "(a) limiting expenditures granting higher subsidy toward expenses providing educational services who, class, more likely have close affinity contribute economic well-being; "(b) achieving equalization between affected classes services; 9 "(c) efficiently administering determination appeals process; 10 "(d) preventing disparate treatment among categories nonimmigrants respect admissions, tuition, charge-differentials. 11 "Reaffirmation Regardless reaffirms intends deems serve set forth above." February 1979, answered our certified negative, stating "[s]ince nothing general renders G-4 holders, dependents, State, answer 'No.' " Toll 284 Md. 425, 444, 397 A.2d 1009, 1019. also declined consider implications Regents' clarifying because, although resolution change position, beyond scope question. Id., 436-437, A.2d, 1014-1015. 13 Attorney General now requests "be restored Court's active docket further briefing argument ." We must deny request has fundamentally altered posture case. Our rests premise "the apparently no interest continuing aliens if since indicated both here would redraft 'to accommodate' courts can" acquire domicile. 661, 1347. After longer appears true. And "paramount" University, "squarely thus raises new issues constitutional should addressed first instance Court. therefore vacate judgment remand light opinion Elkins, Toll, 1978. 14 So ordered. * order certifying was dated 25,

Category: 8