Toll v. Moreno

Background

A group of nonimmigrant residents who hold or are dependents of G-4 visas challenged the University of Maryland’s practice of treating them as nondomiciliaries and denying in-state tuition. The District Court ruled for the students under earlier Supreme Court principles, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. After our earlier decision in Elkins, we asked the Maryland Court of Appeals whether G-4 holders could, as a matter of state law, become domiciliaries of Maryland. Meanwhile the University’s Board of Regents adopted a written resolution clarifying that it denies in-state status to nonimmigrant aliens for several stated policy reasons.

Reasoning

The Court explained that its earlier reasoning in Elkins relied on the assumption that the University would change its policy to allow G-4 aliens to become in-state students if state law permitted domicile. The Board of Regents’ clarifying resolution shows the University intends to continue denying in-state status to nonimmigrant aliens regardless of the state law ruling, so that earlier assumption no longer holds. Because this change in position raises new constitutional questions, the Supreme Court vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment and sent the case back to the District Court for further consideration in light of Elkins, the Maryland Court’s answer, and the Board’s resolution.

Real world impact

G-4 visa holders and their families seeking reduced in-state tuition at the University of Maryland remain affected, and no final nationwide rule was announced. The case is not finally resolved; the District Court must now reconsider the legal and constitutional claims given the University’s clarified policy.