Toll v. Moreno

Background

In 1975 three students living in Maryland but dependent on parents with G-4 nonimmigrant visas sued the University of Maryland after the school refused to grant them lower in-state tuition. The University’s written policy generally gave in-state status to citizens and immigrants with permanent residence but excluded all nonimmigrant visa-holders as a class. The students argued the rule denied them rights under federal law and the Constitution.

Reasoning

The Court focused on whether federal law leaves room for states to impose that kind of categorical exclusion. It found Congress allows G-4 visa-holders — employees of certain international organizations and their families — to establish domicile in the United States and that federal treaties and statutes give many G-4 employees special tax treatment. Because Congress permitted their residence and granted tax benefits, the Court concluded Maryland’s policy imposed an extra burden not contemplated by federal law and thus conflicted with the Supremacy Clause (federal law is supreme).

Real world impact

The ruling invalidates the University’s categorical bar against domiciled G-4 visa-holders obtaining in-state status. Domiciled G-4 students who qualify under state domicile rules must have the same opportunity for in-state tuition as other residents. The Court left open other constitutional questions and noted some parts of the case depended on timing and the University’s later explanations, so final eligibility determinations may still be litigated.

Dissents or concurrances

Several Justices wrote separately. Justice O’Connor agreed the tax-exempt group could not be charged higher tuition but cautioned not all G-4 holders share the same tax status. Justice Rehnquist dissented, arguing the majority overstated federal preemption and that Maryland’s financial and administrative interests justified the policy.