Court Opinion

ID: 9720623
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:37:48.47057+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:20.047925
License: Public Domain

McCown, J.,
dissenting.
The plaintiff, his wife, and children have been bona fide residents of, and domiciled in, Nebraska since Sep>~ tember 5, 1967. Those facts are undisputed. It is conceded that a state may charge a nonresident a higher tuition fee than that charged a resident; and that the state may also impose an original durational residence and domicile requirement of at least a year upon those persons coming into the state from other places. Virtually all of the cases cited in the majority opinion support those two -undisputed propositions.
The critical part of the statute, which is not fully quoted in the majority opinion, provides: “No person shall be deemed to have established a residence in this state during the time of attendance at such state institution as a student, nor while in attendance at any institution of learning in this state, except in the case of a minor who qualifies as provided in this section.”
There is no rational or reasonable basis on which an individual who has been a bona fide resident of and domiciled in this state for the initial time period required by statute, should be denied the right to prove that fact simply because he was in attendance at “any institution of learning in this state,” whatever that term connotes. The discrimination is compounded when minors, emancipated and unemancipated, are excepted. The applicable principles are set out in Carrington v. Rash, 380 U. S. 89, 85 S. Ct. 775, 13 L. Ed. 2d 675. In that *261case, the Supreme Court overthrew a Texas constitutional provision prohibiting any member of the armed forces of the United States from acquiring a voting residence in the State of Texas so long as he remained in service, even though he might have fulfilled the initial residence requirements applicable to others. There is surely no more justification for arbitrary discrimination against students than against persons in military service, nor is there any more rational basis for it. As applied to a tuition case of this kind, see Newman v. Graham, 82 Idaho 90, 349 P. 2d 716, 83 A. L. R. 2d 492.
The 1971 Legislature recognized the fact that there was no justifiable or reasonable basis for such an arbitrary and invidious discrimination and completely amended section 85-502, R. R. S. 1943, and repealed the former section. L.B. 408 of the 1971 Legislative Session completely removed that part of the statute quoted above and found unconstitutional by the district court; changed the initial residence requirement from four months to one year; completely redefined classifications; and set specific, complete, and objective requirements for proof of residence and domicile. That statute represents a thorough, rational, and reasonable approach to the problems involved.
The judgment of the district court was eminently correct and should have been affirmed.