Vlandis v. Kline

PETITIONER: Vlandis
RESPONDENT: Kline
LOCATION: Allegheny County District Court

DOCKET NO.: 72-493
DECIDED BY: Burger Court (1972-1975)
LOWER COURT:

CITATION: 412 US 441 (1973)
ARGUED: Mar 20, 1973
DECIDED: Jun 11, 1973

ADVOCATES:
John A. Dziamba - for appellees
John G. Hill, Jr. - for appellant

Facts of the case

Question

Media for Vlandis v. Kline

Audio Transcription for Oral Argument - March 20, 1973 in Vlandis v. Kline

Warren E. Burger:

-- number 72-493, Vlandis against Kline and others.

Mr. Hill you may proceed.

John G. Hill, Jr.:

Thank you, Your Honor.

Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court.

The named appellant in this case is John Vlandis who was the Director of Admissions at the University of Connecticut.

The appellees were both students at the time of the bringing of this action and what they seek to question is the constitutionality of a Connecticut General Statute, setting an out of state differential in tuition for students.

And they particularly single in on a line of a statute, which states that once the out of state status has been determined, the students shall maintain the status for the balance of his or her attendance at the institute of higher education.

I would point out that although the word permanent is used throughout the briefs and in the record below, the statute is not permanent in the complete sense, in that a student originally out of state, may still come into Connecticut before applying for admission, and at that time, gain in-state status.

So I think what we've really got here is something more than permanent.

I think what is really being argued is a durational test for tuition differentials.

Now this is the point that is specifically brought up on the amicus briefs and were filed by the University of Washington and also by the Civil Liberties Union of Ohio.

I think that is the real question that is here before the Court, mainly what durational test can a state place in making this discrimination as to in-state or out-state.

It's a question of considerable importance.

One analyst estimates that some $300-400 million maybe as stake for state supported institutions of higher education.

I think my particular problem that I have to persuade the Court as to is whether or not the Court's decision in Dunn v. Blumstein should be expanded to cover an out of states tuition situation rather than voting rights.

And it's this I'm going to address myself too because I think this is the particular question that I have to make.

Thurgood Marshall:

In Dunn v. Blumstein even if he is there, over the period of time he is not eligible to vote?

John G. Hill, Jr.:

That is correct Your Honor, that is --

Thurgood Marshall:

If he -- how long has he stayed in college in Connecticut?

Does it run up to PhD?

John G. Hill, Jr.:

Yes, Your Honor.

Yes, PhD is offered.

Thurgood Marshall:

If the person enrolls in the University and the next day he becomes a citizen, and the next year votes, he is still a non-resident for seven years so far as University is concerned?

John G. Hill, Jr.:

Well, Your Honor, that is the way it's been interpreted.

Actually, it's been interpreted that there could be a break after they award the degree, but your principle is correct, Your Honor, that once he has established say he comes to the University of Connecticut, he is a freshman, he is going to -- he is classified out of state to begin with, he is going to remain out of state.

Thurgood Marshall:

If he gets elected the Mayor of Town of New Haven, he is still a non-resident?

John G. Hill, Jr.:

That is correct Your Honor.

Thurgood Marshall:

And how in the world do you justify that?

John G. Hill, Jr.:

Your Honor, I justify that on this basis.

Dunn v. Blumstein set up a formula that applied to voting rights.