Legal Definitions - Graham v. Richardson

The Supreme Court case of Graham v. Richardson, decided in 1971, established crucial protections for legally resident non-citizens (often referred to as "aliens" in legal texts) against discrimination by state governments. The Court ruled that states cannot deny welfare benefits to individuals who are legally authorized to live in the United States.

The decision rested on two main legal principles:

• Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment: The Court found that state laws discriminating against legally resident non-citizens violate the Equal Protection Clause. This clause ensures that states treat all persons within their jurisdiction equally under the law. For the purposes of this case, the Court determined that discrimination based on legal alienage should be viewed with "heightened judicial scrutiny." This means that for a state law to treat legal non-citizens differently from citizens, the state must demonstrate a very strong, compelling reason for doing so, and the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that reason. This makes it very difficult for states to justify such discrimination.
• Federal Supremacy in Immigration Matters: The Court also held that state laws denying benefits to legal non-citizens interfere with the federal government's exclusive power over immigration. The federal government determines who can legally enter and reside in the U.S. If states then create their own rules that significantly disadvantage these legally admitted individuals, they are essentially creating their own immigration policy, which conflicts with and is "preempted" by federal authority.

In essence, Graham v. Richardson affirmed that states cannot use a person's legal non-citizen status as a basis to deny them access to fundamental public benefits or to create policies that undermine the federal government's role in immigration.

Here are some examples illustrating the principles of Graham v. Richardson:

• State-Funded Professional Licenses:

  Imagine a state passes a law requiring all applicants for a state-issued license to practice medicine, engineering, or law to be U.S. citizens. This law would likely be challenged and struck down under the principles of Graham v. Richardson.

  How it illustrates the term: This state law discriminates against legally resident non-citizens who have met all other professional qualifications (education, exams, residency requirements) solely based on their immigration status. Under the Equal Protection Clause, the state would struggle to provide a compelling reason why a legally authorized resident, otherwise qualified, cannot practice a profession. Furthermore, by creating such a barrier to employment, the state is effectively creating its own immigration-related policy that interferes with the federal government's authority to determine who can legally reside and work in the U.S.

• State-Sponsored Housing Assistance Programs:

  Consider a scenario where a state establishes a program to provide rental subsidies or access to affordable housing units for low-income residents, but explicitly includes a clause that excludes all non-citizens, even those with legal permanent residency status, from applying.

  How it illustrates the term: This situation directly mirrors the welfare benefits discussed in Graham v. Richardson. The state is denying a crucial social benefit (housing assistance) to a class of legal residents based solely on their alienage. This discrimination would be subject to heightened judicial scrutiny, requiring the state to present an extremely strong justification, which is unlikely to be found for basic housing needs. Additionally, such a broad exclusion could be seen as undermining the federal government's decision to allow these individuals to reside legally in the U.S., implying they should have access to basic necessities.

• State University Tuition and Scholarship Eligibility:

  Suppose a state university system offers a prestigious, state-funded scholarship program for high-achieving high school graduates, but its eligibility criteria state that applicants must be U.S. citizens. This would exclude legally resident non-citizens who have lived in the state since childhood, attended local schools, and meet all academic requirements.

  How it illustrates the term: This policy discriminates against legally resident non-citizens by denying them an educational opportunity and financial aid based solely on their immigration status. The state would need to demonstrate a compelling interest for this exclusion, which is difficult when the individuals are otherwise qualified and integrated into the state's educational system. While perhaps less direct than denying welfare, denying access to state-funded higher education opportunities could be argued to conflict with the federal government's broader policy of integrating legal residents into society and allowing them to contribute.