The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the University of North Texas may resume charging out-of-state U.S. citizens more in tuition than unlawful migrants residing in Texas.
The lawsuit arose after non-Texas students who are U.S. citizens sued leaders at the university over a policy that caused them to pay nine times more than students living in Texas unlawfully, according to The Texas Tribune.
Young Conservatives of Texas (YCT), a group with members who attend UNT, sued the school’s administration with the assistance of the Texas Public Policy Foundation. Filed on behalf of several out-of-state students, the lawsuit claimed UNT’s application of Texas law controlling resident/nonresident tuition violated federal legislation.
§ 1623(a) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act stipulates that “notwithstanding any other provision of law,” someone living in the U.S. unlawfully “shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State … for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit … without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”
At issue was whether § 54.051(d) of the Texas Education Code unavoidably contradicted § 1623(a). The Texas law sets certain parameters around the difference in what universities may charge in-state versus out-of-state students. It does not explicitly address whether a student must be a lawful resident.
A district court found that Texas law directly violated the standard established by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. UNT was thus forbidden from extending discounted rates to residents living in Texas unlawfully that it did not also extend to U.S. citizens.
Judge Edith Brown Clement, writing for the appeals court panel, reversed the lower court’s earlier decision on July 10, finding that the way UNT applied the Texas law in question did not violate the federal statute.
Nevertheless, the circuit court concurred with the district court’s position that the plaintiffs had proper standing and “were injured by paying nine times more than in-state residents.”
Furthermore, despite ultimately siding with UNT, the appeals court repeatedly highlighted errors in the university’s defense, noting that the argument “misunderstands YCT’s claim,” “misunderstands YCT’s injury,” and identifying where “UNT officials’ responses again miss the mark.”
The Fifth Circuit suggested that while YCT’s current legal argument based on the purported incompatibility of federal law and the Texas Education Code failed, other avenues would likely prevail if brought before the court.
“We must decide whether the specific provision [emphasis in original] that YCT has chosen the challenge is preempted by federal law,” the decision notes. “We conclude it is not, even if other, unchallenged provisions in Texas’ scheme may be.”
Judge Clement wrote that the lower court had misinterpreted the federal statute used in the suit, controverting the language “to require states to grant benefits to citizens if they grant those benefits to illegal aliens.”
The Fifth Circuit noted that federal law “does not require what the district court insists it does. … Thus, even though a different, unchallenged [emphasis in original] portion of Texas’ scheme seems to conflict with § 1623(a), it is entirely possible to follow both § 1623(a) and § 54.051(d) at the same time.”
The section of the Texas Education Code relied upon by YCT’s lawsuit “only imposes nonresident tuition for those who do not qualify for Texas residency (alien or citizen alike). It does not offer a public benefit to illegal aliens. … Unlike Texas’ rule allowing illegal aliens to qualify for resident tuition … § 54.051(d) speaks only to the price that nonresidents pay.”
In conclusion, Clement again emphasized, “There may be valid preemption challenges to Texas’ scheme here. But this is not one of them.”
Chance Weldon, the director of litigation for TPPF’s Center for American Future, told The Dallas Express, “I think the court indicated … that the Texas tuition is likely preempted by federal law and therefore illegal but disagreed about the remedy we were seeking.”
“It’s sad for our clients who are paying 900% of the tuition amount that unlawful immigrants receive,” he added, noting that some of the YTC students ultimately had to drop classes due to the increased costs.
When asked about next steps and whether TPPF would appeal the decision or attempt a different litigation strategy, Weldon said they were considering several options, but “we haven’t come to a decision yet.”