Document: 435 U.S. 647 98 S.Ct. 1338 55 L.Ed.2d 614 Wilson H. ELKINS, President, University of Maryland, Petitioner,v.Juan Carlos MORENO et al. No. 77-154. Argued Feb. 22, 1978. Decided April 19, Syllabus It is the policy Maryland to grant "in-state" status for admission, tuition, and charge-differential purposes only students who are domiciled in or, if a student financially dependent on his parents, whose parents Maryland. In addition, may some cases deny in-state do not pay full spectrum state taxes. Pursuant this refused respondent nonimmigrant alien students, each whom was parent held "G-4 visa" (a visa granted officers or employees international treaty organizations members their immediate families) named that visa, ground holder G-4 cannot acquire domicile because such incapable demonstrating an essential element domicile—the intent live permanently indefinitely After unsuccessful appeals through channels, respondents brought class action Federal District Court declaratory injunctive relief against its President (petitioner), alleging University's refusal them violated Due Process Equal Protection Clauses Fourteenth Amendment. The relief, but limited it declaration injunction restraining from denying opportunity establish solely "irrebuttable presumption non-domicile." court irrebuttable Clause, finding reasonable alternative procedures were available make crucial determination rejecting claim Immigration Nationality Act 1952 common law precluded aliens forming necessary domicile. Appeals affirmed. Held: 1. Although consider factors other than granting status, record shows denied could form needed Therefore, case controlled by principles announced Vlandis v. Kline, 412 441, 93 2230, 37 63, as Weinberger Salfi, 422 749, 771, 95 2457, 2469, 45 522, 542, those situations which State "purport[s] be concerned with [domicile, but] at same time den[ies] one seeking meet test [domicile] show clearly bearing issue." Pp. 658-660. 2. Before considering whether Vlandis, supra, should overruled further limited, proper concern stare decisis well Court's longstanding avoiding unnecessary constitutional decisions requires necessity decision shown, no showing has been made here potentially dispositive issue, universally true, turns federal statutory there controlling precedents. 660-662. 3. Under law, have legal capacity change 663-668. (a) Act, intended comprehensive complete code governing all aspects admission United States, Congress expressly required immigrant under certain classifications maintain permanent residence abroad he intention abandoning. did impose restriction aliens, and, given nature conclusion inescapable Congress' failure restrictions deliberate manifests willingness allow adopt States confirmed Naturalization Service regulations). But adoption would confer question decided State. 663-666. (b) present therefore, will violate INS regulations, terms develops subjective stay indefinitely. Moreover, although lapses termination employment organization, necessarily leave States. There being indication subject any adverse factor, fraudulent entry into, commission crime in, respondent's alleged length (ranging 5 15 years) country, appear adjusted resident without difficulty. 666-668. 4. Because conclusions respect can become domiciliaries since purely matter precedent, certified determination. 668-669. 4 Cir., 556 F.2d 573, certified. David Feldman, Baltimore, Md., petitioner. Alfred L. Scanlan, Jr., respondents. Mr. Justice BRENNAN delivered opinion Court. 1 Respondents, representing residents Maryland,1 Maryland2 petitioner Elkins, tuition various laws,3 Amendment, Supremacy Clause. determining established 63 (1973), Moreno 420 F.Supp. 541 (Md.1976), affirmance order, 573 (CA4 1977). We certiorari conflict 522 (1975). 434 888, 260, 54 173 (1977). 2 we find issues resolved deciding important issue "as appears . precedent [Maryland]," Md.Cts. & Jud.Proc.Code Ann. § 12-601 (1974), first decide preliminary then certify set out infra, 668-669, Appeals. 3 * 1973 adopted general statement "In-State Status Admission, Tuition, Charge-Differential Purposes." relevant part, provides: "1. citizens, lawfully admitted accordance laws following cases: 6 "a. Where upon parent, spouse least six consecutive months prior last day registration forthcoming semester. 7 "b. independent preceding twelve months, provided maintained immediately semester." Brief Petitioner 7. 8 term "domicile" defined "a person's place abode; namely, must demonstrated Maryland." Id., 8. also sets eight considered domicile, student, persons dependent, pays "Maryland income tax earned including taxable outside State." 9. 9 addition establishing criteria conferring establishes administrative regime person initially files documentary information setting basis See id., 8-9. If denied, appeal, personal interview "campus classification officer," "Intercampus Review Committee (IRC)," finally University. 9-10. II 10 1974, Juan C. P. Otero applied statement. Each visa," is, "officers, organizations, families" pursuant U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(G)(iv) (1976 ed.).4 Initially, "neither Manuel nor son, Carlos, domiciliaries." Record 41. Respondent neither citizen residence. 80. 11 These took "consolidated appeal" IRC, letter stated: 12 "The differential out-of-state fees based principle subsidize individuals scope liability. Such taxes support part Maryland's policies rest cost equalization. examining particulars your felt you range (e. g., tax) therefore classify consequential higher rate. 13 "You raised our requisite reside domicile." 51, 86. 14 A final appeal advised follows: "It 16 citizens Furthermore, (or parents) display This reflects desire equalize, far possible, education between payment taxes, not. reviewing these does Mary land tax. my opinion, aforesaid purpose policy, clear language 'out-of-state.' 17 distinguishes non-domiciliaries regard, position University, conditions preclude Thus, underlying equal zation, I am requests reclassification." App. 12A. 18 Clare B. Hogg's experience similar. Her application rejected because: 19 "[T]he limits ability As holds hold judgment eligible classification. 20 "Also, income, state. feel weakens request reclassification [sic ] 106. However, IRC stated appeal: 21 hold, 111. 22 No mention respondents' status. ibid. Yet reasons, lack recited virtually identical sent grounds 13A. 23 Unable obtain machinery, filed enjoin future member might 24 "(a) visa; 25 salary wages organization provisions party; (c) reason holding paying treaty." 11A. 26 Court, cross-motions summary judgment, enforcing Elkins "the 'in-state' status" F.Supp., 565. specifically facts fathers, dispute. 564-565. Similarly, indicate exclude fathers paid taxes.5 27 With presumption" that, had allowed submit supporting her authorities, individualized hearing "predetermined concerning alien," 555, ruled visas so long legally capable changing law. 555-556. An examination 1952, 66 Stat. 163, amended, 1101 seq., distinguished classes 556-559. Accordingly, true. Since "reasonable means making determination," U.S., 452, S.Ct., 2236, readily hand, Clause 559-560. affirmed Fourth Circuit, reasoning Pet. Cert. 54a-55a. III A. 28 argues tested standards (1975), progeny, petitioner's view effectively Vlandis. argument, asserts reversed points erroneous fact true domiciliary. 29 Respondents reply distinguished, overruled, covers case. they assert correctly interpreted discriminate domiciliaries, argue, Court,6 prevail protection even Vlandis.7 Cf. Nyquist Mauclet, 432 1, 97 2120, 53 30 parties argue due process, protection, versus gravamen dispute unquestionably whether, consistently throughout litigation notwithstanding possible interpretations statement, "paramount" courts Maryland.8 eschewed interest creating classwide exclusion status9 apparently, many receive exempt taxation.10 makes consideration contention conclusively presumed unable so, squarely within Salfi 2470.11 31 reverse below, overrule limit as, course, asked us do. embarking review underlyingVlandis, however, joins long-standing counsel continuing vitality avoided unless really necessary. See, e. Bellotti Baird, 428 132, 146-151, 96 2857, 2865-2868, 49 844 (1976); Reetz Bozanich, 397 82, 90 788, 68 (1970); Harman Forssenius, 380 528, 534, 85 1177, 1181, 50, (1965); Harrison NAACP, 360 167, 177, 79 1025, 1030, 1152 (1959); Railroad Com 'n Pullman Co., 312 496, 61 643, L.Ed. 971 (1941); cf. Ashwander TVA, 297 288, 346-347, 56 466, 482-483, 80 688, 710-711 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). So far, out:12 process either On apparently indicated both redraft "to accommodate" intent.13 resolution precedents,14 correct meaning area sua sponte certify15 order clarify state-law question.16 B 32 argued, disagree, date, alien's create sort argument understanding defining creates "legal disability," see Restatement (Second) Conflict Laws 15(1) (1971), bound recognize 4, 2123; n. 3, 2131 (Rehnquist, dissenting); Seren Douglas, Colo.App. 110, 114-115, 489 P.2d 601, 603 (1971) (semble); Gosschalk Gosschalk, 48 N.J.Super. 566, 574-575, 138 A.2d 774, 779 (semble), aff'd, N.J. 73, 145 327 (1958); 75-82, 327, 328-331 (1958) (dissenting opinion). Williams Williams, 328 1380, 1383 (D.C.V.I.1971). case, need effect restricting postulated above, require pledge date certain. 33 extensive study, passed seq. ed.), covering business pleasure, immigrants residents. H.R.Rep.No.1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., (1952); S.Rep.No.1137, 1-2 (1952), U.S.Code Cong. Admin.News p. 1653. amended 1976, two immigration quotas, Eastern Western Hemisphere.17 object quotas number To end, divides into classes. class, includes every fall establi hed 101(a)(15) 1101(a)(15) ed.). Except "immediate relatives citizens" "special section 101(a)(27),"18 later becomes chargeable quota allocation available.19 note requirement 34 second Act. subcategories come allocation. §§ 101(a)(15)(A)—(L). provide needs diplomacy, tourism, commerce, hampered entering more strict placed aliens.20 35 generally viewed temporary visitors homogeneous enters For example, conditioned abandon foreign implication, seek defines visitor "an having country abandoning" coming pleasure. 101(a)(15)(B). abandoning seeks enter temporarily pursuing course study .." 101(a)(15)(F). 101(a)(15)(C) (aliens continuous transit"); 101(a)(15)(D) (vessel crewman "who intends temporarily"); 101(a)(15)(H) (temporary worker "which abandoning"). 36 By definition classes, meant barred real immigrate permanently. attached deported, 241(a)(9) 206, 1251(a)(9) absence adjustment (discussed below), nonimmigrants restricted sought deported. restrict class. particular, nonimmigrant's 101(a)(15)(G)(iv).21 code, where intent, deliberate. silence pregnant, read mean Congress, while anticipating normally occur willing nonrestricted regulations Service, indefinite period—so recognized Secretary family officers) organization. CFR 214.2(g) (1977); Gordon Rosenfield, Law Procedure 2.13b, 2-101 (rev. ed. Whether would, 38 develop able violating Service's visa. Of terminate lose Ibid. Nonetheless, deportation re-enter immigrant. 39 Beginning created mechanism, "adjustment status," already apply 245 217, 1255 ed.).22 Prior time, consulate abroad. 7.7. grace, right, most recent binding decision23 Board states: 40 "Where application, applicant offset unusual outstanding equities. Generally, favorable ties, hardship, etc., countervailing meriting exercise discretion. factors, ordinarily granted, still discretion." Matter Arai, I. N.Dec. 494, 496 (1970) (emphasis added), modifying Ortiz-Prieto, 317 (BIA 1965). 41 referred include things circumstances24 committing crimes States.25 States26 adjust difficulty.27 C 42 reasons Subtit. Tit. Jud.Proc.Code,28 Maryland: 43 "Are residing 44 becoming Maryland?"29 ordered. 46 REHNQUIST, THE CHIEF JUSTICE joins, dissenting. 47 like universities, differentiates "out-of-state" students. categories delineated Part ialiens 50 semester[, or] 51 added). 52 sole criterion determines looks "United citizen" "immigrant residence"; satisfies initial requirement, determine visas. lower rates despite explained Assistant Director Admissions Hogg, principal classifying status; secondary noted probably pass hurdle domicile:1 suit among things, violation contravention (1973). Circuit holding. 57 rather today certifies Maryland:2 58 59 Maryland?" 60 unhesitatingly join certification posed before us. convinced thus result needless delay. classifies reasons. All agree major factor purposes. classification, evidenced citizenship separate According "reflects not." Holders charging better "equalize" education.3 62 plays role award oral "it entirely university policy" face contrary Tr. Oral Arg. automatic inescapable. considerations equalization themselves dictate continuation current policy. petitioner, "that regents, [as] suggested previously discretion regents." 15. above presumption. determined prevented presenting proof domicile.4 Instead, equalization, rate evidence alien. "purport[s residency, residency issue. 2236." 2470, 542 (1975) added).5 Here, 64 "does purport speak bona fides [domicile], plainly inadmissible. Starns Malkerson, 326 234 (D.C.Minn.1970), summarily 401 985, 91 1231, 527 benefits compliance objective criterion, Legislature bear sufficiently close nexus objectives used eligibility. Like plaintiffs Starns, [respondents] completely free specified requirements; failing effort, rationally related legitimate legislative deprive satisfy test." 772, 2470. 65 non-Maryland decide, believes "any 'irrebuttable presumption' true." Ante, 661. And moot decides holders changes light decision, now certainty future. summary, nothing prevents presented.6 While what time-consuming certification, implied disapproval refer Upon concluding presumption, faced proceeded answer negative though abstain Maryland.7 never addressed granted. itself, risked invalidating valid. emphasizes, obviously desirable questions which, intensely local immensely wide government activities instance courts." 663 16. 67 state, federal, courts. believe us, dissent today's certification.8 differs complaint. certified, as: "All chose challenged interested attending currently senior high schools visa." 541, 564 (Md.1976). dismissed authority Monroe Pape, 365 81 473, 492 (1961). 548-550. complaint conduct 1981, 1983, 2000a, 2000a-1, 2000a-3, 2000d. 3A. Jurisdiction predicated 1343(3), 1343(4). premise 1983 cited sections Title gave jurisdiction cause action. 548. Neither rulings "(15) 'immigrant' except aliens— "(G) (iv) officers, [recognized International Organizations Immunities 669, 288 seq.], families." dependents Inter-American Development Bank. 6A, 7A. Hogg employee Bank Reconstruction Development. 9A. states resided years, five years. 4A. relief. believed cost-equalization otherwise qualified not, did, 560, found prohibits penalizing avail exemptions treaties. pleadings strongly suggests correspondence disavowed they, unequivoclly allegation "(b) 'principle equalization' 'policy not' ." 5A (Complaint ¶ 13(b)). 16A (Answer 13). similarly responses admission. 134 (¶ 2(d)) (denying exemption visaholders "relevant policy"); 135 3(d)) (same); 139 6(d)) 136 4(d)) relevance less 50% income); 141 8(d)) 142 9(d)) 140 7(d)) "unearned" income). Finally, 'immigrant student' tax, exhibit domiciliary 142. party difference possibility latter tends confirm determinative group aliens. we, grounds. argument. 560. invalid control over relations vested exclusively Government. reach time. surprised learn dissent, post, 672-676, treatment governed been: Defendant represents Regents implemented rules guidelines Policy Statement 215 again: wording 'In-State' structured non-immigrant structure incorporates courts, 217 "[The University's] actions definition, Defendants Plaintiffs evaluation law: existence merely single operative fact, albeit paramount, context 231 (second emphasis "This distinction [between aliens] reading conjunction described 1101(a)(15)(A) (L), thereby non-immigrants That 'domicile' distinctions 233. Indeed, argued below abstention, 15, Brother Rehnquist namely: 'clarification' needed. principles, standing alone, charged 272. countered: "What fail understand [University's] 'In-State Policy' [the 340. doubt statement's express reservation 651, excluding simply Petitioner's unequivocally "denied" "continu[e] visas," 16A, across-the-board denial significance tells alienage irrelevant itself 232. 5, supra. bar grounds, 672-673, done doing so. 655-656, 5. allows submitted claims domicile—it evaluate evidence. cannot, materially different briefed here. reason, think proper. (1976). core Plaintiffs' belief judicial foreclose Constitutional arguments; affirmative rewrite In-State accommodate category 239-240 Similar sentiments expressed brief Brief, 11, 12, 28, 30, 34, n.20. odds reasonably regents 14-15. briefs below. counsel, Attorney General "are way other." 10. abstain, 211, ask erroneous, for, 150-151, 2867-2868: often remarked equitable practice abstention ' delay expense doctrine inevitably gives rise." noted, availability adequate procedure 'does, run save energy, resources helps build cooperative federalism.' " [T]he greatly simplifies [Pullman abstention] analysis." (Footnotes omitted.) frequent defer construction district construed, see, Bishop Wood, 426 341, 345-346, (1976) (collecting cases), First, governments highest interest. Many turn domicile: vote; public office; divorce; short, full-fledged polity State, power participating (except, aliens) fully governance. Second, nationals living great importance affects Government, greater Columbia area, nations. system, always required, efficient method obtaining ruling hesitate ourselves it. doing, emphasize suggest incorrect. Amendments 2, 2703, amending 201 1151 ed.) pt. 1653; H.R.Rep.No.91-851, pp. 5-7 (1970), 1970, 2750. Until 17, origin Hemisphere excluded Section 1976 Amendments, 2705, removed restriction. Opinions General, Appeals, published Administrative Decisions "binding administration [1952] Act." 3.1(g), 103.3(e), 103.9(a) Rubio-Vargas, 167 1965); Vega, N. Dec. 337 Diaz-Villamil, 494 1964); Ameeriar INS, 438 1028 (CA3), cert. dismissed, 404 801, 92 21, (1971). Barrios, 172 1963); Brownell Carija, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 379, 254 78 (1957); Gutnayer, 94 90, 212 462 (1954). Marchena, 355 (Regional Comm'r 1967); F___, (Asst. 1958). Annot., A.L.R.Fed. 557 (1970). Penaherrera, 334 (Dist. 1969). action, representatives. "§ 12-601. Supreme when requested certifying involved proceeding pending state." 12-602. Invocation subtitle. subtitle invoked court's own motion cause." 12-603. Certification order. Form.—A shall forth: "(1) answered; "(2) controversy arose." majority rule domicil purposes." Laws, Comment o, Should follow rule, presume direct attention [Reporter's Note: Subsequently, answered question, supplemental rendered Toll Moreno, 441 458, 99 2044, 354 (1979).] Intercampus Committee, emphasized precludes 12A 55, 80, 115. notes, ante, 668-669 answerable simple "yes" "no." asks "incapable ncapable divorce jurisdiction. Williamson Osenton, 232 619, 625, 442, 443, 758, 761 (1914), ever varies depending used, state-court opinions 1914 shown observation re Estate Jones, 192 Iowa 78, 182 N.W. 227, 229 (1921). purposes, divorce, etc. recognizes, 656-657 presently demonstrates concerns led charge concludes 'paramount' concern" 659, supports citations affidavits references memoranda counsel. Counsel defense validity promulgated enforced authorized, here, predict how Thus whatever "surprise" foresees taken Regents' 659 8, stem attribute ambiguous statements agency agency's manner them. Even selected conclusion. earlier, 673, high" modify concerns, lead continue Domicile, words, "controlling concern." 29-32; 19-21 (out-of-state "serve[s] measuring domicile"; serve purposes"). declined accord presented. (1973); Connecticut enrolled normal indicia acquired during period. reads accuse employing nonuniversal, yet irrebuttable, instead misinterpreting misinterpreted error courts; cons itutional amici urge do, overruled. Some Members helpful resolving claim. nondomiciliaries interpretation presented petition certiorari, is: "Whether precedents presumptions, disregarded articulated erroneously concluded fee violative clause fourteenth amendment Constitution?" Consideration claim, best left remand. ultimately arguments, seem irrelevant. Unlike situation Nyquist, 5-6, nn. 6, 2122, 2123-2124. suspect niversity's alone sufficient line drawn "urged G-4's 20. indicates complaint, urged "abstain exercising possess until heard 117. renewed memorandum thereof. 239-243. reply, "should [it] elect use Uniform Questions Code Courts Judicial Proceedings, 12-601-609 (1974). empowered precedent." 274. went outright needed." relevant, address pages dicta accompany nonetheless troubled unsupported dictum deport, unspecified circumstances, terminates 667.

Category: 1