## Facts

- The University of Maryland, a state-operated institution, granted in-state tuition to students who were Maryland domiciliaries.
- Maryland allowed citizens and immigrant aliens to qualify for in-state status upon proof of domicile.
- Maryland categorically denied in-state status to nonimmigrant aliens, including G-4 visa holders, even if they were domiciled in Maryland.
- G-4 nonimmigrant status applies to officers or employees of certain international organizations and their immediate family members.
- The respondent students lived in Maryland with parents who were G-4 nonimmigrants domiciled in Maryland, but the students were denied in-state tuition solely due to G-4 status.
- The students sought declaratory and injunctive relief, asserting federal preemption under the Supremacy Clause and also raising due process and equal protection claims.
- The District Court granted relief and ordered refunds; the Fourth Circuit affirmed; after an earlier vacatur and remand by the Supreme Court, the lower courts again ruled for the students, and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

## Issues

1. Whether a state university’s categorical denial of in-state tuition status to domiciled G-4 nonimmigrant aliens conflicts with federal immigration law and is preempted under the Supremacy Clause.
2. Whether the Eleventh Amendment bars a federal court from ordering tuition refunds to class members who would have received in-state status but for a stay pending appeal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment for the students.
- Maryland’s categorical denial of in-state status to domiciled G-4 nonimmigrants was invalid under the Supremacy Clause.
- The Court held the policy imposed an additional burden on lawfully admitted aliens not contemplated by Congress, because federal law permits G-4 aliens to establish domicile.
- The Court also found the policy conflicted with federal objectives reflected in special federal tax treatment and related policies applicable to G-4 aliens.
- The Eleventh Amendment did not bar the ordered refunds, given the procedural posture following a stayed order and the University’s representation that appropriate refunds would be made if the judgment were affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- State action discriminating against lawfully admitted aliens is preempted when it imposes burdens not contemplated by Congress and lacks congressional authorization.
- A state may not condition access to state benefits on a federally defined immigration classification when Congress has affirmatively permitted the relevant alien class to establish domicile and the state rule conflicts with that federal choice.
- Conflict preemption applies when state policy stands as an obstacle to Congress’s purposes and objectives in a federal immigration scheme.
- The Eleventh Amendment does not necessarily bar monetary relief characterized as refunds tied to compliance with a previously entered and stayed equitable order, particularly where the state entity represented it would provide such refunds if the judgment were upheld.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Maryland could not categorically deny in-state tuition to students who were domiciled G-4 nonimmigrants because the policy conflicted with federal immigration choices and objectives, and it further held that the Eleventh Amendment did not prevent the ordered tuition refunds in the circumstances presented.


Toll v. Moreno, 458 U.S. 1 (1982)