Legal Definitions - Toll v. Moreno

Toll v. Moreno is a significant U.S. Supreme Court case from 1979 that clarified the limits of state power when creating policies that affect lawfully admitted non-citizens. The Court ruled that a state university's policy denying "in-state" tuition rates to certain non-immigrant aliens (specifically, G-4 visa holders and their dependents) who were legally living in the state was unconstitutional.

This decision was based on the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which dictates that federal laws and treaties are supreme over state laws when there is a conflict. The core principle established by Toll v. Moreno is that states cannot enact policies that conflict with or undermine federal immigration law. When Congress has established a framework for admitting certain non-citizens and has granted them specific rights or conditions (such as the ability to establish a permanent home or receive tax exemptions), states cannot impose additional burdens or restrictions that frustrate these federal objectives. The Court emphasized that the federal government has broad and exclusive authority over immigration matters, and states must not interfere with this federal prerogative by creating discriminatory policies against lawfully admitted non-citizens.

Here are some examples illustrating the principles of Toll v. Moreno:

• Professional Licensing Requirements: Imagine a state medical board implements a rule requiring all applicants for a medical license to have held "permanent resident" status for at least five years. However, federal immigration law allows doctors with specialized work visas (such as an H-1B visa for professionals) to enter the U.S. and practice medicine immediately upon arrival, establishing a path to long-term residency that doesn't fit the state's specific "permanent resident" definition.

  How it illustrates the term: This state policy would likely be invalid under the Toll v. Moreno principle. Federal law permits certain non-citizens to enter the U.S. specifically to work in professions like medicine. If a state imposes additional, more restrictive residency requirements that effectively bar these federally authorized individuals from practicing, it interferes with Congress's intent to allow these professionals to work in the country. The state's requirement creates an additional burden not contemplated by federal immigration law.

• Access to State-Funded Childcare Programs: A state passes a law stating that children of individuals holding specific types of non-immigrant work visas (e.g., L-1 visas for intracompany transferees) are ineligible for state-funded childcare subsidies, even if their parents are lawfully employed, pay state taxes, and have established long-term domicile in the state. The state argues that these families are "temporary" and should not receive benefits intended for permanent residents.

  How it illustrates the term: This scenario demonstrates the Toll v. Moreno principle because the state is imposing a burden on lawfully admitted non-citizens that conflicts with their ability to integrate and function within the federal immigration framework. Federal law permits these individuals to live and work in the U.S. for extended periods, and by denying their children access to a basic public service like childcare subsidies based on a state-defined "temporary" status that contradicts the federal allowance for long-term residency, the state's policy interferes with the federal government's broad authority over immigration and the conditions under which non-citizens are allowed to reside.

• Eligibility for State University Scholarships: A state university establishes a scholarship program exclusively for "in-state residents" and defines residency in a way that explicitly excludes any non-immigrant visa holders, regardless of how long they have lived in the state, paid taxes, or demonstrated an intent to make the state their permanent home. This policy applies even to those holding visas that allow for indefinite stay and domicile, such as certain investor visas (E-2) or visas for individuals of extraordinary ability (O-1).

  How it illustrates the term: This policy would likely be challenged under the precedent of Toll v. Moreno. While scholarships are a state benefit, the university's policy creates a classification based on immigration status that conflicts with federal immigration law. Federal law permits many non-immigrants to establish long-term residence and domicile in the U.S. By categorically denying them eligibility for a scholarship based on a state-defined exclusion that contradicts the federal allowance for long-term residency and domicile, the university is imposing an additional burden and discriminating against lawfully admitted non-citizens, thereby frustrating federal immigration policy.