Background
The United States sued Texas, alleging that state provisions authorizing illegal aliens to pay in-state tuition rates violated federal law. Texas settled the case, and the district court entered a consent judgment permanently enjoining enforcement of the challenged provisions. Advocacy groups and a community college moved to intervene to defend the state law, but the district court denied intervention as futile and dismissed their motions to alter or amend the judgment.
The court’s reasoning
The court held that Section one thousand six hundred twenty-three of Title eight of the United States Code expressly preempts state rules granting illegal aliens postsecondary education benefits based on residence when United States citizens have not received the same benefit. The court found that the Texas provisions allowed illegal aliens to qualify for resident tuition while out-of-state citizens paid higher rates, creating a disparity barred by federal law. The court affirmed the denial of intervention because the movants could not plausibly defend the preemption claim. The court further dismissed the remaining claims because the movants were nonparties who had not been granted leave to intervene and thus lacked standing to appeal the consent judgment.
The dissent
What it means going forward
The decision reinforces federal preemption of state laws granting in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens when those benefits are not equally available to United States citizens. It clarifies that nonparties denied intervention cannot appeal consent judgments in the underlying case.