Student sues UC Hastings for residency requirements
By Daily Bruin Staff
April 10, 2002 9:00 p.m.
By Crystal Betz
Daily Bruin Contributor
Definitions of in-state residency could change at the University
of California and California State University systems if a state
court of appeals rules in favor of a lawsuit claiming current
university standards are unconstitutional.
The lawsuit, filed by UC Hasting’s Law School student
Joshua Markowitz, cites that the UC and CSU unconstitutionally
create classes of citizens by establishing random residency
requirements for tuition purposes.
Under current California Education Codes, to be considered a
California resident, a student must have lived in the state with
their parents for three years or be financially independent of
their out-of-state parents for the same amount of time.
Currently, some students have California identification cards
and even vote in the state, but still are required to pay
out-of-state fees.
Though the lawsuit directly targets UC Hastings, it has
potential implications for the entire university system, since all
UC students follow the same guidelines when applying for in-state
residency.
The monetary difference between in-state and out-of-state
student fees is vast:Â at UCLA, out-of-state undergraduate
students pay $15,310.27, while in-state students pay only
$4,236.27.
Filed by Eppsteiner & Associates, LLP on behalf of
Markowitz, the lawsuit names three entities ““ the Board of
Directors of Hastings College of Law, the UC Regents and the
Trustees of the CSU.
UC spokesperson Trey Davis said the UC doesn’t comment on
ongoing litigations. A CSU spokeswoman, meanwhile, said they
hadn’t heard of the lawsuit and would look into it. A
spokeswoman at Hastings did not comment.
Stuart Eppsteiner, lead attorney representing Markowitz in the
case, said there is no rational basis for distinguishing between
citizens.
“The state shouldn’t discriminate against people
coming here when they are tax-paying citizens,” Eppsteiner
said.
Markowitz first presented his case to the San Francisco Superior
Court in 2001. When presented with the case, UC Hastings requested
“motions for judgment on the pleadings” and argued that
Markowitz’s complaint held no legal merit, said John Baum, an
attorney hired by Hastings.
On Aug. 16, 2001, San Francisco Superior Court Judge David
Garcia granted the motion in favor of UC Hastings and dismissed the
lawsuit.
Markowitz is taking his case to the State Court of Appeals,
alleging that UC Hastings residency requirements are
unconstitutional and that they violate the due process clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment, which reads in part: “No state
shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state
deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the
equal protection of the laws.”
Opening briefs for the case were filed March 8. The case will be
heard at a later date.
Markowitz moved to California in August 1998 to attend UC
Hastings, “with the intent of remaining in California as a
citizen and practicing attorney for at a minimum, the indefinite,
if not the rest of his natural life,” according to the
factual statement in the lawsuit.
Though Markowitz is a registered and active voter since moving
to the state in 1998, he is still considered a non-resident
student, because he has failed to prove that he is financially
independent from his out-of-state family, the lawsuit said.
To be considered financially independent, a student must receive
less than $750 from their parents and not live in another state for
more than six weeks of the year.
In regards to UC residency requirements, Baum said,
“Hastings is simply following the law.”
“The bottom line is that we do believe our educational
stature is constitutional, the superior state court has found it
constitutional, and established legal cases have also found it
constitutional,” Baum added.
One such California Supreme Court Case, Kirk v. the Board of
Regents, established in 1969 that residence requirements for
student fees do not infringe on constitutional rights. This
decision gave states the right to impose reasonable residence
restrictions.
“The state has limited resources, and it’s rational
for the state to decide how to allocate these resources,”
Baum said.
“The constitutionality of residence requirements for
tuition will be upheld,” he said.
Reports from Eugenie Mason, Daily Bruin Contributor.
