Elkins v. Moreno

Background

A group of students who live in Maryland but are dependents of G-4 visa holders sued the University of Maryland after being denied "in-state" tuition. The University’s written policy awards in-state status to U.S. citizens and permanent residents and requires proof of Maryland domicile. University reviewers denied these students because their parents held G-4 visas and some paid no Maryland income tax, and the students then sued claiming constitutional and federal-law violations. The lower courts found the University used an irrebuttable presumption that G-4 holders could not be domiciliaries and ruled for the students.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court first looked at federal immigration law to ask whether Congress or federal rules automatically prevent G-4 visa holders from becoming domiciliaries. The Court concluded federal law does not require G-4 holders to keep a permanent foreign residence or to promise to leave the United States, and administrative rules allow indefinite G-4 presence and possible adjustment to permanent status. Because whether someone can be a Maryland domiciliary is ultimately a question of Maryland law and the state’s highest court had not resolved it, the Supreme Court sent that specific state-law question to the Maryland Court of Appeals instead of finally deciding the constitutional claims.

Real world impact

The decision leaves the core matter to Maryland courts, so G-4 families, the University, and other state agencies must await the state court’s answer. If Maryland says G-4 holders can be domiciliaries, universities may need to change residency and tuition rules; if not, current classifications may stand. The Supreme Court’s action is not a final ruling on who wins the broader constitutional claims.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued certification was unnecessary because the University’s policy relied on several reasons (including tax and cost concerns) and the federal court could resolve the due process issue without state-court input.