On March 9, 2016, the Georgia Latino Alliance for Human Rights (GLAHR) and students within the University System of Georgia filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The plaintiffs sued the members of the Board of Regents for the University System of Georgia for denying in-state tuition to undocumented students who had received deferred immigration action under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. They argued that the students were lawful residents of Georgia and that, as such, the state had created an unconstitutional two-tiered residency classification system. Plaintiffs sought injunctive and monetary relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming violations of the Supremacy Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause.

The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on April 7, 2016. They argued that GLAHR lacked standing; the plaintiff’s official capacity claims were barred by the Eleventh Amendment and not cognizable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983; plaintiffs had failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and the defendants had qualified immunity. In response, the plaintiffs amended their complaint on April 21, 2016, adding both plaintiffs and defendants to the lawsuit and maintaining their original causes of action. They also filed a motion for a preliminary injunction on May 3, 2016, seeking enjoinment of the University System’s classification system that had been classifying deferred action recipients as not lawfully present. The plaintiffs alleged that this system was irreparably harming the educational opportunities and career prospects of the deferred action students. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint two days later. Judge William C. O’Kelley heard oral arguments regarding the motion to dismiss on August 25, 2016.

On February 10, 2017, defendants motioned to stay proceedings given a parallel proceeding in Dean Alford v. Rigoberto Rivera Hernandez. In that case, plaintiffs brought suit in state court against the University System of Georgia Board of Regents, arguing their denial of in-state tuition to DACA recipients violated the Board of Regents’ own policies and state statutory law concerning residency status. As that case had moved to the Georgia Supreme Court, defendants argued proceedings in this case should be stayed pending the outcome of that case.

On February 16, 2017, Judge William C. O’Kelley granted defendant’s motion to stay proceedings and denied without prejudice the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction and the defendants’ motion to dismiss. He explained both the parallel litigation in Dean Alford v. Rigoberto Rivera Hernandez and President Trump’s stated opposition to the DACA program justified the stay.

Following the stay, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint on May 1, 2017. The plaintiffs filed another motion for a preliminary injunction on May 31, 2017. Defendants responded in opposition on June 13, 2017.

Subsequent to Judge O’Kelley’s decision, the Trump Administration announced its decision to rescind the DACA program.

On March 28, 2018, the District Court dismissed without prejudice the defendants’ motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. The Court stayed the case pending a decision from the Eleventh Circuit in Estrada v. Becker. In Estrada, students qualified to attend Georgia’s selective schools challenged the Georgia Board of Regents’ policy requiring Georgia’s three most selective universities to verify the “lawful presence” of students admitted. Under the challenged policy, applicants with DACA could not attend schools that did not admit all academically qualified applicants for the two most recent years. The District Court in Estrada had dismissed plaintiffs’ challenges that the policy violated the Supremacy Clause and the Equal Protection Clause.

On March 6, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision in Estrada and affirmed the District Court. 917 F.3d 1298. It found the policy did not violate the Supremacy Clause because it was not an unconstitutional regulation of immigration and the policy was not preempted. Regarding the Equal Protection claim, it agreed with the District Court that the students were not similarly situated to other noncitizens permitted to attend because unlike the other noncitizens the DACA recipients did not have lawful status. Following the decision in Estrada, Judge Richard W. Story issued an order to show cause on March 12, 2019, asking the plaintiffs to demonstrate why GLAHR v. Alford should not be dismissed. In response, the plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the case. The case was closed on March 28, 2019.

Bryce Freeman - 10/10/2017
Emily Kempa - 02/23/2021


compress summary