The. Attorney General of Texas
December31, 1984
M MAllOX
ttorneyGeneral
1preme
courtBUildh!J Mr. Garry Meuro OpinionNo. m-289
P.0.a0x12646 chairman
Austin, TX. 76711. 2646 Texas VeteransLand Board Re: Constitutionalityof Texas
214752661 835 StephenF. Austin Building requirement of United States
IIOX 9101874.1367
Telecopier 51214750266
Austin,Texas 78701 citizenshipfor eligibilityfor
participationin the Veterans
Land and HousingProgram
4 J.sckaon. Suite 706
“allal), TX. 752024606
2141742.6944
Dear Mr. Mauro:
4624 Alberta Ave., Suite 160 You informus that an applicantto purchase land pursuant to the
El Paso. TX. 799052793 Veterans’Land Progrim is a citizen of Canada. For purposes of this
.6/633.3464 opinion, we will assume that the applicant remains in the United
States lawfully. 10th article III, section 49-b of the Texas
It... a Texas, Suite 700 Constitutionand section 161.001(7) of the Natural Resources Code
mston. TX. 77002-3111 requirethat veteranawho participateIn the Veterans’Land Programbe
~Y2234666 citizensof the United States. You ‘askus the followingquestion:
In light cf the equal protection clause of the
18 Broadway. Suite 312
lbbock, TX. 79401-3479
United Stzltes Constitution and recent United
0C6l747.5238 States Supreme Court holdings in the area of
classificationsbased on alienage, can resident
aliens who have served in the United States armed
KB N. Tenth. Suite S
McAllen. TX. i6601.1665
forcesand who are othewise~qualifiedveteransbe
5121662JY7 preventedfrom participatingin the VeteransLand
and Eousine,Programs?
206 Main Plaza. Sults 406 We predict that a cot.rt
would answeryour questionin the negative.
San Antonio, TX. 762652797
12Q254191
Article III, se:,tion49-b of the Texas Constitutionprovides in
pertinentpart:
An Equal Opportunity/
llirmalivs Action Employer The lands of the Veterans’Land Fund shall be
sold by sc.idBoard in such quantities,on such
terms, at such prices, at such rates of Interest
and under t:uchrules and regulationsas are now or
may hereafl:erbe providedby law to veteranswho
servednot !.essthan ninety (90) continuousdays,
unless sconer discharged by reason of a
service-cormecteddisability, on active duty in
the Army, X.wy, Air Force, Coast Guard or Marine
Mr. Garry Mauro - Page 2 (JM-289)
Corps of the United States after September 16,
1940. and who. upon the date of filing his or her
~lication to purchke any such land is a citizen
of the United State;:,is a bona fide resident of
the State of Texas, aad has not been dishonorably
discharged from any branch of the Armed Forces
above-named and who at the time of his or her
enlistment,inducticn.comanissioning. or drafting
was a bona fide residentof the State of Texas, or
who has resided in Texas at least five (5) years
prior to the date of filing his or her
application,and providedthat in the went of the
death of an eligible Texas Veteran after the
veteran has filed rrfththe Board an application
and contractof sale to purchasethroughthe Board
the tract selected by him or her and before the
purchase has been completed. then the surviving
spouse may completr:the transaction. (Emphasis
added).
See also Natural Resources Code 9161.001(7) (defining "veteran" to
includerequirementthat appllcsntbe a citizenof the United States);
Il62.001(8)(C) (defining "vet~eran"for purposes of the Veterans'
Rousing AssistanceProgram to include requirementthat applicantbe a
United States citizen).
The Fourteenth Amendment to. the United States Constitution
provides in pertinentpart that
[n]o State shall . . . depriveany person of life,
liberty,or property!, without due process of law;
nor deny to any pere,cnwithin its jurisdictionthe
equal protection or the laws. . . . (Emphasis
added).
The Equal Protection Clause does not prohibit all legislative
classifications.In reviewinl~ legislationunder the Equal Protection
Clause, the U.S. Supreme Court's usual approach has been a
"two-tiered"standard. If a statuteinfringeson a fundamentalright,
Earper v. Virginia State Board of Elections,383 U.S. 663
c-%P (voting),or createsarTinherentlysuspectclassification, m
a, Loving v. Virginia, 385 U.S. 1 (1967) (race). the statute is
subject to strict judicial a,crutinywhich requires the state to
establisha compellinginterestjustifyingits enactment. To do so,
the state must demonstrate that its purpose or interest is both
constitutionallypermissibleaad substantialand that its use of the
classification-is necessary to accomplish its purpose. --See In re
Griffiths.413 U.S. 717 (1973:.
If a statute does not affect a fundamentalright or create a
suspect classification,the statute is accorded a presumption of
Hr. Carry lheuro- Page 3 (Jh-289)
constitutionality that is not disturbedunless the enactmsntrests on
grounds wholly irrelevantto the achievementof a legitimate state
objective. The latter stamdard frequently 16 referred to as the
rlrtionalbasil,test. See McGowan v. Maryland.366 U.S. 420 (1961). A
person challenginga classif:L:ation judged by the rationelbasis test
m6t establish that th6 classification does not bear a fair
relationship t0 6 legitimatepublic purpoec. Where66 a 6t6te IPUSt
justify a suspect classiffcationby showing a Compelling 6tEte
intere6t. -See Plylerv. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 217 (1982).
A6 a thresholdmatter, ue not6 that it has long been held that
the auarantees of the Eousl.Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amend&at extend to all persons regardlessof citizenship. Plyler v.
Doe. supra. See generally snnot.. 47 L.Ed.Zd 876 (1976). Earlier
United States SupremeCourt decisionsheld that state statutesdenying
aliens certain rights enjoyed by citizens ere not invalid under-ths
Equal ProtectionClause of the FourteenthAmendmentas long as there
16 6 "rational basis" for the classification embodied in such
6tatutes. See, e.g Rick v.
--Webb, 263 U.S. 326 (1923);Crane v. New
York, 239 U.S. 19;' (1915); Patsone V, Pennsylvania,232 U.S. 138
(1914). Bowever.more recentdecision6have held that classifications
based-upon alienage 6re inherently suspect End ~subjectto "strict
judicialscrutiny." See, e.S Bernal v. Fainter, U.S. 104
s.ct. 2312 (1984); Examin:& Board of Engine= ArchGis 6
Surveyorsand de Otero. 426 UTS. 572 (1976);In re Griffiths,413 U.S.
717 (1973);Grahsmv. Richardson,
-- 403 U.S. 365 (1971).
Statutes containingsuch clas6ifications vi11 be upheld only if
the state imposingthem is able to satisfythe burden of demonstrating
"that its purposeor interestis both constitutionally permissibleand
substantialand that its use of the classific6tionis 'necessary. . .
to the accomplishment'of :ltspurpose or the safeguardingof its
interest." In re Griffiths.supra, at 721-722.
The underpinninf,sof the Court'6 constitutional
decisionsdefining the circumstancesunder which
state and local g03rc?rnm6nt6
may favor citizensof
this country by dtnying lawfully admitted aliens
equal rights and op~portunitieshave been two. The
first,based squan?!.y on the conceptsembodiedin
the Equal Protecti,onClause of the Fourteenth
Amendment and in the Due Process Clause of the
Fifth Amendment, l~scognizes that '[alliensES a
class are 6 priml!example of 6 "discrete and
insular"minority . . for whom . . . heightened
judicial solicitude is appropriate.' Graham v.
Richardson, 403 U.S.. at 372. See -- also San
Antonio SC;hoolDIE,:..v. Rodriguez, 4111J.S. 1, 29
(1973);‘a ;armsn1-2 ,ugall. 413 U.S., at 642.
The second. arounded in the Suoremscv
. I Clause.
~~~~~~.
Const. Art.-Vi. cl. 2. and in the naturalization
p. 1284
Mr. Carry Mauro - Page 4 (JM-289)
power, Art. I, 58. cl 4. recognize6 the Feder61
GWErtu&ent'Eprimary re6ponsibilityin the field
of immigr6tion and naturalization. See, e.g.,
liinesv. Davidowitz,312 U.S. 52, 66 (1941);Truax
v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33, 42 (1915). See Gr&x
Richardson,403 U.S., at 378; Takahax v. Fish 8
GWIE Comn’n. 334 U.S, 410 (1948).
ExaminingBoard of Engineers,~'rchitecte
h Surveyorsv. de Otero. 426
U.S.572, 602 (1976).
GEnErElly. official discrimination egsinst lawfully admitted
aliens ha6 taken one of three forma. First, aliens have been
prohibitedfrom enjoyingpublic resource6or receivingpublic benefits
on the 86me basis as citiatns. See, e.g., Gr6ham v. Richardson,
supra: Takahashi v. Fish 6 same Commission, 334 U.S. 410 (1948).
Second, aliens have been excluded from public employment. See, e.g..
Sugarm6n v, Dougall, 413 U.S. 634 (1973). Third, aliens have been
restricted from engaging in private enterprise6and occupations in
which they could participateif they were citizens. SEC?De cEn66 V.
Bica, 424 U.S. 351 (1976);ExaminingBoard of Engineers,Architects&
Surveyors v. de Otero, Ez-In re Griffiths,w The court has
developedan exceptionto the rule that a class distinctionbased upon
alienage automaticallyinvoks:sstrict scrutiny. This exception has
been termed the "political function,, exception End applies to lavs
which exclude aliens from DO,litiOnEverv claselv associatedwith the
process of democraticaelf-'gcrrcrnment.~See. e.g., Bern61 v. Fainter,
D; Foley v. Connelle. 43:sU.S. 291 (1978); Cabell v. Chavez-
Salido,454 U.S. 432 (1982);&bach v. Norwlck.441 U.S. 68 (1979).
Clearly, the constitutionaland statutoryprovisionsinvolved in
this request fall within the first grouping,1.6. statute6which deny
to aliens public benefits available to citizens. We think that a
court, when presented with this issue, would invoke the "strict
6crutiny"standardand strike,down that part of article III, section
49-b of the Texas Con6t:ttutionand 6eCtion6 161.001(7) and
162.001(8)(~)of the Natur61ILeaources Code which re6trictaapplicants
for certain veteran6' 6srliat6nceprograms to citizens only.
Admittedly,only rarely are a'tatutes6uStEinedwhen they are subjected
to strict scrutinv:as ha6 be'rnnoted strict scrutinvmav be strict in
theory, but in practice it is almost always fatal.-Se; Gunther, The
SupremeCourt, 1971 Term -- F,,rward:In Search of Evol~g Doctrine=
a ChangingCourt: A Model for?fewerEqual Protection,86 Rarv. L. Rev.
1, 8 (1972). Nevertheleasl, we can discern no comuellina state
interestin this instance,ncfrhave you suggestedone. :If th;re were
one. we cannot concludethat slucha classification would be necessary
for its accomplishment. ,i:sthe court declared in Graham v.
Richardson, supra. at 374, ~aeithera state's desire to preserve
limited welfare benefits for :Ltsown citizens, nor 6 state's concern
for its fiac61 integrity,constitutesa compellingjustificationfor
D. 1285
Hr. Gamy Mauro - Page 5 (JWB9)
denying public assistanceto resident aliens or restrictingbenefits
to citizensand longtimeresidentaliens.
We note that all persms inducted into the armed services,
includingresident aliens. are requiredby 10 U.S.C. 1502 (1982) to
take an oath of allegianceto the United States Coustitutionand to
the President of the United S,t.ates.
In striking dowu a Connecticut
regulationlimiting the practice of lav to citizens only, the court
recitedthe above-mentionedst.a.tutory
oath aud declaredin a footnote:
If aliens cau take this 06th when the Nation is
making use of their services in the national
defense, residence,a:Lienapplicantsfor admission
to the bar surely cmnot be precluded,as a class.
from taking an oath to supportthe Constitutionon
the theory that they are unable to take the oath
in good faith.
In re Griffiths,BIIPT(L.at 7:!Cs
n. 18. Analogously,we conclude that
residentalienswho are veterms of the United StatesArmed Forces may
not be precluded as a class to entitlementto benefits granted to
veteransvho are United Stateo citizens.
Accordingly,we concludethat a court, if presenteddirectlywith
the issue..
would concludethat those portionsof article III, section
49-b of the Texas Const:Xution and sections 161.001(7) and
162.001(8)(C) of the Natural Resources Code, which restricts
applicantsfor certainveterans’assistanceprogramsto citizensonly,
is violative of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendmentof the United State!;
Constitution.
jjUMMARY
Those portionsof article III, section 49-b of
the Texas Constitut:lonand sections161.001(7)and
162.001(8)(C) of thl:NaturalResourcesCode, which
restrict applicants for certain veterans’
assistanceprogramsto citizensonly, is violative
of the Equal Protec:t.ionClause of the Fourteenth
Amendmentof the Un:LtedStates Constitution.
dz&
JIM HATTOX
AttorneyGeneralof Texas
TOM GREEN
First AssistantAttorney.Gen&l
p. 1286
Mr. Carry Mauro - Page 6 (JM-2a91
DAVID R. RICRARDS
ExecutiveAssistantAttorney Gmeral
RICK GILPIN
Chairman,Opinion Committee
Preparedby Jim Moellinger
AssistantAttorney General
APPROVED:
OPINION COMMITTEE
Rick Gilpin. Chairman
Colin Carl
Susan Garrison
Jim Moellinger
JenniferRiggs
p. 1287