0 evaluări0% au considerat acest document util (0 voturi)
69 vizualizări5 pagini
This case summary discusses the 1922 case Bryan v. Regents of University of California. In this case, a student named Bryan was admitted to the University of California but was required to pay the higher non-resident tuition rate of $75 per semester even though she was not a resident of California. Bryan argued this violated her constitutional rights. The Supreme Court of California ruled that distinguishing between resident and non-resident tuition is constitutional, as the state can classify citizens based on residency, such as for voting rights. Since the extra fee was required equally of all non-resident students, no constitutional violation occurred. The court reasoned that state universities are partially funded by state taxpayers, so it is fair that only residents benefit from reduced tuition.
This case summary discusses the 1922 case Bryan v. Regents of University of California. In this case, a student named Bryan was admitted to the University of California but was required to pay the higher non-resident tuition rate of $75 per semester even though she was not a resident of California. Bryan argued this violated her constitutional rights. The Supreme Court of California ruled that distinguishing between resident and non-resident tuition is constitutional, as the state can classify citizens based on residency, such as for voting rights. Since the extra fee was required equally of all non-resident students, no constitutional violation occurred. The court reasoned that state universities are partially funded by state taxpayers, so it is fair that only residents benefit from reduced tuition.
This case summary discusses the 1922 case Bryan v. Regents of University of California. In this case, a student named Bryan was admitted to the University of California but was required to pay the higher non-resident tuition rate of $75 per semester even though she was not a resident of California. Bryan argued this violated her constitutional rights. The Supreme Court of California ruled that distinguishing between resident and non-resident tuition is constitutional, as the state can classify citizens based on residency, such as for voting rights. Since the extra fee was required equally of all non-resident students, no constitutional violation occurred. The court reasoned that state universities are partially funded by state taxpayers, so it is fair that only residents benefit from reduced tuition.
Case Review Santuan Stanley Georgia Southern University EDLD 8431 - Higher Education Law October 4, 2015
BRYAN V. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
Facts In 1922, there was a student by the name of Bryan who wanted to attend the University of California. She was admitted into the university but with the understanding she is to pay the full tuition rate that all non-California residents are required to pay. Bryan was not a resident of California but she did not want to pay the extra fee of $75 per semester. Her belief was that she was being punished for not being from the state of California and also felt that this was a violation of her constitutional rights, following those actions she petitioned and was able to have her case was heard by the Supreme Court of California. Issue Residents in the state of California that have the privilege to attend the University of California are required to pay tuition. Although there may be scholarships and grants used to offset the cost of tuition, it is required that all students pay tuition, which in most cases are the same for each and every student. Although, it could vary depending on the program a student decides to study. Students who are non-residents in the state of California can also be admitted into the University of California, but these students have an extra flat fee that has to be paid for all non-residents. In 1922, $75 per semester was the flat fee that was required on top of the regular tuition to all out of state students to attend the University of California. The issue at hand is simply whether the extra fee that is made mandatory for students to attend a university outside their state of residency is constitutional. Answer It is constitutional to make distinction between residents and non-residents. In the Constitution it allows the denial of a citizens right to vote within a state until certain requirements are met, such
BRYAN V. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
as residing for at least one year can classify as a bona fide resident. A bona fide resident is a citizen that has a long term plan to reside within a particular state and therefore receives the benefit of a full resident. Therefore Bryans petition to receive in-state tuition on the grounds that the distinction between residents and non-residents is unconstitutional and was consequently denied. Reasoning of the Court The court used a few different reasons for denying the petition of Bryan. The court felt good about holding the legislature that classified citizens and their abilities to vote, determining that a student must maintain residence for a full taxation period to show evidence of becoming a bona fide resident. This keeps students who only want to achieve state residency temporarily or only to attend the university from gaining residency and paying in-state tuition. Reason being is because a large amount of money that is used to fund these universities come from the government which comes from state tax payers. It would be unfair for these dollars to go toward an individual who does not paid taxes in that state and then benefit from the tax payers dollars. Conclusion Bryan decided to petition the court back in 1922 on the grounds that she might have been taken advantage of by the inflation of tuition. She presented a good case and it was heard by the Supreme Court of California. The Supreme Court ruled in the favor of the University of California, the reasons for the higher tuition rate were justified. On top of that, the Constitution also justified the Universitys actions of classifying students by their residency status. When most issues are challenged constitutionally, as long as all of the students that are in the same category (out-of-state students), were required to follow the same actions in this case the out-of-
BRYAN V. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
state students required to pay the extra $75 per semester, no constitutional rights are being violated.
BRYAN V. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
References Alexander, K., & Alexander, K. (2011). Student Fees and Tuition. In Higher education law: Policy and perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.