## Facts

- New York law limited pharmacist licenses to U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents (LPRs).
- The plaintiffs were lawfully admitted nonimmigrant aliens (primarily H-1B and TN visa holders) authorized under federal law to live in the United States and work as pharmacists.
- Plaintiffs held New York pharmacist licenses only because the State had granted a temporary statutory waiver; the waiver was scheduled to expire, after which plaintiffs would be ineligible to renew or obtain licenses solely due to nonimmigrant status.
- Many plaintiffs had lived in the United States for years and some were pursuing permanent residency, consistent with federal rules permitting continued work authorization and “dual intent” for certain nonimmigrant categories.
- Plaintiffs sued New York education officials seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging the licensing restriction violated the Equal Protection Clause and conflicted with federal immigration and employment policy.
- The district court granted summary judgment to plaintiffs and permanently enjoined enforcement; New York appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether a state law restricting professional licensure to citizens and LPRs, thereby excluding lawfully admitted nonimmigrant aliens, violates the Equal Protection Clause.
2. Whether lawfully admitted nonimmigrant aliens fall within the suspect class for alienage-based classifications, requiring strict scrutiny rather than rational-basis review.
3. Whether the licensing restriction is preempted under the Supremacy Clause because it obstructs federal authorization for nonimmigrants to work in specialty occupations.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed summary judgment for plaintiffs and the permanent injunction.
- The court held that lawfully admitted nonimmigrant aliens are included within the suspect class for alienage classifications, so strict scrutiny applies.
- Applying strict scrutiny, the court held the licensing restriction unconstitutional because New York lacked a compelling interest and the categorical exclusion was not narrowly tailored.
- The court noted substantial Supremacy Clause concerns but resolved the case on Equal Protection grounds rather than preemption.

## Legal Principles

- State classifications that disadvantage lawfully admitted aliens are generally subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, absent a recognized exception.
- Lawfully admitted nonimmigrant aliens are not excluded from suspect-class protection merely because their immigration status is labeled “temporary.”
- Under strict scrutiny, a state must prove a compelling governmental interest and narrow tailoring; administrative convenience and generalized claims of “transience” do not justify a blanket licensure ban.
- A state licensing scheme that prevents federally authorized nonimmigrants from performing the work for which they were admitted can raise obstacle-preemption concerns under the Supremacy Clause, even if the court decides the case on equal-protection grounds.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit held that New York’s citizen/LPR-only pharmacist licensing rule violated Equal Protection because it imposed a categorical barrier on lawfully admitted nonimmigrant pharmacists without a compelling, narrowly tailored justification, and it affirmed an injunction barring enforcement.


Dandamudi v. Tisch, 686 F.3d 66 (2d Cir. 2012)