No.

2015-2016

IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

________________

A.R.H.,
Petitioner Appellant
v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent Appellee

On Writ of Certiorari to the United States

Court of Appeals for the Fourteenth Circuit
_______________
BRIEF FOR RESPONDENT
_______________

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW

(1) Whether the Fair Education Act violates the rights of Kedesh College under the
Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?
(2) Whether the Fair Education Act violates A.R.H.s right to equal protection of
the law as applied to the Congress of the United States through the Fifth
Amendment of the Constitution?

TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
TABLE OF CONTENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
Statutes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii

Constitutional

Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Cases On

Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Supreme Court Cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii Cases Cited within Record . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. iv

Supreme Court Cases: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
vii SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. x ARGUMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 1 I. THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FIRST
AMENDMENT

USING

THE

FAIR

EDUCATION

ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. The act is neutral and generally applicable to all public and private
universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.....1
neutral and

1. The Fair Education Act is not directly affecting education, as it is

generally applicable law for all public and private universities. .

...........1
2. Kedesh lacks a free exercise claim against the U.S Government, as the act does
not infringe their beliefs and religious practices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.....2
3. Kedesh remains able to allow undocumented students however through the
proper means such as DACA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......

B. Kedesh College lacks a hybrid-right claim and standard of review should be rational
basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1. Kedesh lacks an expectation of right to private association because they fail to
meet the five prong test. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Kedesh fails to meet the characteristics of intimate nature thus fails the right to
a

higher standard of scrutiny. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3. The standard of rational basis is enough governmental interest to be able to
enforce the Fair Education Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

......
II. THE FAIR EDUCATION ACT DELAYING ENTRY TO FROM HIGHER EDUCATION OF
UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE FIFTH AMENDMENT OF
THE UNITED STATES CONSITUTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. The Fair Education Act is a consistent enactment of congressional legislation to
combat unauthorized immigration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......
1. The United States constitution allows capitol Congress to authorize
immigration policies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......
2. The Fair Education Act passes all standards of review applicable . . . . . . . . . . . .
i. Congress has a compelling interest to preserve foreign relationships by
communicating

as

single

sovereign . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii. Congress has a substantial interest to promote lawful permanent
residency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......
iii.

Congress

has

legitimate

interest

to

preserve

seats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. A.R.H. fails to show an equal protection violation between aliens and citizens . . . . . . .
1. A.R.H.s higher education is being delayed not prohibited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2. Higher education has not ever been a fundamental right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ii. Higher education is a privilege and not a right . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

iii. The endowment of a right to higher education omits the credibility of

colleges and universities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......
C. Cases in which are distinguishable between state government and undocumented
immigrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
......
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TABLE OF AUTHORITITES
Statutes
The Fair Education Act (2006) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Constitutional Provisions
U.S. Const. art I, 8, cl. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
U.S. Amend. I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
U.S.

Amend.

V..................................................................
U.S. Amend. XIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cases on Record
Cases:
Arizona v. United States, 132 U.S. 2492 (2012) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bernal v. Fainter, 467 U.S. 67 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S 497 (1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Chi Iota Colony of Alpha Epsilon Pi Fraternity v. City Univ. of N.Y., 502 F .3d 136 (2d Cir. 2007)
.........................................................................
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F. 3d 643 (10th Cir. 2006) . . . . . . . . . .
Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In re Griffiths, 413 U.S. 497 (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
La. Debating and Literary Assn. v. City of New Orleans, 42 F .3d 1483 (5th Cir. 1995) . . . . . . . . .
Mathew v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Parker v. Hurley, 514 F .3d 87 (1st Cir. 2008) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Regents of Univ. of Mich. V. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214 (1995) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Salvation Army v. Department of Commy Affairs, 919 F .2d 183 (3d Cir. 1990) . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Thomas v. Anchorage Equal Rights Commn, 165 F .3d 692 (9th Cir. 1999) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
United States v. Windsor, 133 U.S. 2675 (2013) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Cases Cited within Record

Cases
Ambach v. Norwick, 441 U.S. 68 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Brown v. Board of Education, 345 U.S. 972 (1954) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Church of Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
New York Club Assn v. City of New York, 487 U.S. 1 (1998) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Royster Guana Co. v. Virginia, 253 U.S. 412 (1920) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 980 (1973) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398 (1963) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33 (1915) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S. 228 (1896) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (1978) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISONS

U.S. Constitution, Amendment I:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people
peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment V:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a
presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or
in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be
subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in
any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation.
U.S. Constitution, Amendment XIV:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are
citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. 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.
U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 4:
Congress shall have the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization;
The Fair Education Act (2006):
1: DEFINITIONS. In this act the following terms are employed:
(1) "Undocumented person refers to a person who lacks the proper legal right to be in the
United States of America or any of its territories. Such a person can include a born or naturalized
citizen who has renounced his or her citizenship.
(2) Postsecondary education refers to the formal education that follows elementary and
secondary schooling.
(3) Postsecondary school refers to an institute of education, including private or public and forprofit or non-profit, that provides students with a postsecondary education.
2: No postsecondary school shall permit any undocumented person to enroll in, audit, or attend
classes after December 31, 2014.

 3: Undocumented persons enrolled in, attending, or auditing classes in postsecondary schools

prior to December 31, 2014 shall be allowed to enroll in, audit, or attend classes if such is
allowed under the laws of the state or territory where the postsecondary school is located. Such
persons shall be eligible to receive any postsecondary degree for which they qualify provided
that such award occur before January 1, 2015.
4: The president, or equivalent thereof, of every postsecondary school shall be responsible for
ensuring that the postsecondary school that he or she serves is in compliance with this law. This
includes adopting procedures and mechanisms that he or she deems reasonable and appropriate.
5: Every postsecondary school shall submit proof to the United States Department of
Homeland Security that its students are legally entitled to pursue a postsecondary education in
the United States and its territories. Section 6: Nothing in this law shall be construed to authorize
a postsecondary school to violate any state, local, or federal law. Section 7: The Act shall take
effect on January 1, 2015.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (2012):
A) DACA applies to persons both in removal proceedings and not currently in removal
proceedings.
B) To be considered for prosecutorial discretion resulting in deferred action, subject to renewal
after two years, an applicant must provide documentary evidence that he or she:
(1) Came to the United States under the age of sixteen;
(2) Has continuously resided in the United States, since at least June 15, 2007 and is
physically present in the United States on June 15, 2015;
(3) Is currently in school, has graduated from high school, has obtained a general
education development certificate (GED), or is an honorably discharged
veteran of
the United States Armed Forces or Coast Guard;
(4) Has not been convicted of a felony offense, a significant misdemeanor offense,
multiple misdemeanor offenses, or otherwise poses a threat to national
security or
public safety; and
(5) Was under the age of 31 as of June 15, 2012.
C) No individual should receive deferred action unless they first pass a background check.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

The parties of this case have stipulated to the following facts.

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
The Congress of the United States acts upon its plenary power to enact a congressional
legislation and is being demonstrated by the implementation of the Fair Education Act. The
purpose of the policy is to preserve resources, dis-incentivize illegitimate immigration, and to
promote lawful permanent residency. The Record, 2. Congress has explicitly been given, under
constitution, the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. U.S. Const. art I, 8, cl. 4.
The analysis in Arizona exemplifies the Supreme Courts recognition and sensitivity of
immigration policies, in which are entrusted exclusively Congress of the United States.
Arizona v. United States, 132 U.S. 2492 (2012). The Fair Education Act is a constitutionally
valid policy, created solely, on the basis of immigration.
The Fair Education Act passes all standards of review in which are applicable to the
A.R.H.s and undocumented immigrants circumstances. Congress has a compelling interest to
preserve foreign relationships by communicating, to other national authorities, as one single
sovereign. Foreign states want the protection of the just rights of countrys own nationals when
those nationals are in another country. Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941). In the current
era of international relations states needs are to unwavering expect that their nationals are
protected and treated fairly in another country. Furthermore, strict scrutiny is not the appropriate
application for A.R.H, because undocumented aliens cannot be treated as a suspect class
because their presence in this country in violation of federal law is not a constitutional
irrelevancy and being undocumented is not an immutable trait. San Antonio Independent School
District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 980 (1973). Congress has a substantial interest to promote lawful
permanent residency which allows the government of the United States to have a better
comprehensive system of immigration. Subsequently, the result of encouraging permanent

residency allows the benefits allocated to citizens or aliens residing in the United States to invest
back to the economy. Congress has a rational interest to preserve seats in higher education. The
Fair Education Act accounts for every seat in colleges or universities to be preserved for citizens
or legal aliens whom are pursuing a higher education. This policy is also designed to disincentivize illegal immigration and previously in Arizona, this Court held the Immigration
Reform and Control Act to be a valid statue to dis-incentivize employment for undocumented
immigrants. Arizona v. United States, 132 U.S. 2492 (2012). The efforts behind the Fair
Education Act statue were to allow immigrants to continue their pursuit of higher education by
going through the proper means or avenues to become a legal resident.
The Fair Education does not prevent immigrants from obtaining higher education.
A.R.H. fails to show that there is an equal protection violation by the implementation of the Fair
Education Act. In Mathew v. Diaz, the question presented before the court was Not whether
discrimination between citizens and aliens were permissible but whether the statutory
discrimination within the class of aliens was permissible. Mathew v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976).
A.R.H. claim to higher education is invalidated as she fails to draw the distinction between
undocumented and legal immigrants. The subsequent consequences of creating education, as a
fundamental right, would be dismissal the credibility of colleges or universities. For all postsecondary education schools would not be able to deny any student admissions. The analysis, in
which A.R.H. claims suspend on, is not applicable, because no state has ever been given the
authority under the constitution to create an immigration policy. U.S. Const. art I, 8, cl. 4.
Cases such as Bernal v. Fainter, In re Griffiths, and Plyer v. Doe, analysis of those cases
pertain to states government who lack the authority to create immigration policy to protect their
state. The holding applied in Graham v. Richardson pertains to legal aliens in which were being

treated unfairly by not receiving social security benefits. Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld and Bolling v.
Sharpe, are not comparable to A.R.H., because both were held at a standard of strict scrutiny and
were being prohibited indefinitely to receive any type of privilege or benefits. They were also
never provided with any other alternatives to ever being able to be treated equally. The preceding
cases do not deal properly with the merits of the case in which A.R.H. has been placed upon.
There is no equal protection violation because aliens are not being denied the opportunity to
receive a higher education and Congress as full authority to act with their birthright power.

ARGUMENTS
II. THE FAIR EDUCATION ACT DELAYING ENTRY TO FROM HIGHER
EDUCATION OF UNDOCUMENTED IMMIGRANTS DOES NOT VIOLATE THE
FIFTH AMENDMENT OF THE UNITED STATES CONSITUTION
A. The Fair Education Act is a consistent enactment of congressional legislation to
combat immigration.
1. The United States constitution allows capitol Congress to authorize
immigration policies.
The Congress of the United States has duty to regulate immigration and to control the
national borders. Solely Congress can act with such authority because they have been given the
explicit power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization. U.S. Const. art I, 8, cl. 4. This
Court has acknowledged Congress plenary power to authorize such a policy in which it
overrides state statues. This Court has held a sensitive approach to Congress authority pertaining
to immigration policies. Federal law such as the Fair Education Act makes a single responsible
for maintaining a comprehensive and unified system, the Fair Education Act is no different to
secure the national borders and Policies pertaining to the entry of aliens and the right to remain
here are entrusted exclusively to Congress. Arizona v. United States, 132 U.S. 2492 (2012). The
analysis in Arizona v. United States reflects this Courts view of how important it is for Congress
to enact such legislation to combat immigration because the authority to control immigration to
admit or exclude aliens is vested solely in the Federal Government. Truax v. Raich, 239 U.S. 33
(1915). Foreign immigrants will still have the ability to attend school by applying for student
visas. The Fair Education Act does is solely an immigration policy which enforces mechanisms
to require each college and university to submit proof of students legal residency or citizenship.
The Record, 2.
2. The Fair Education Act passes all standards of review applicable.

i. Congress has a compelling interest to preserve foreign relationships

by communication as a single sovereign.
This Court has recognized the relationships with foreign states are gentle at its core and
are of utmost importance, one of the most important and delicate of all international
relationships foreign states worry about their nationals in another country the protection of the
just rights of countrys own nationals when those nationals are in another country. Hines v.
Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52 (1941). Consistently this Court has recognized the importance of
foreign relationships of alien visitors and have committed to the political branches of the federal
government to handle them. Mathew v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976). With respect to the Court,
Congress needs to have the authority to act as a single sovereign to preserve relationships with
foreign powers. Arizona v. United States, 132 U.S. 2492 (2012). A.R.H. is an individual within
the jurisdiction of the United States under the protection of the Fourteenth amendment but she
does not trigger strict scrutiny because being an undocumented immigrant is not an immutable
trait. Also, this Court held that an individual state could bar aliens from becoming a teacher or
police officer if they have not declared their intent to become citizens. Ambach v. Norwick, 441
U.S. 68 (1979). Furthermore, undocumented aliens cannot be treated as a suspect class because
their presence in this country in violation of federal law is not a constitutional irrelevancy. San
Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 980 (1973). Congress has a valid
compelling interest to preserve the relationship with foreign states and to protect credibility.
ii. Congress has a substantial interest to promote lawful permanent
residency.
One of the initiative with the implementation of the Fair Education Act by the federal
government is aimed at promoting lawful permanent residency, along with dis-incentivizing
unlawful immigration. The Record, 2. Congress authority under the United States constitution,

which is longed recognized by this court, grants it the able to create a statute of immigration.
Under 1 an undocumented person refers to a person who lacks proper legal rights to be in the
United States. The Fair Education Act, on its face and as applied, does not single out any college
or university because the purpose of the policy is evidently laid out clearly. The Record, 2. 2
postsecondary education refers to formal education, as acknowledged by this Court, Plyer v.
Doe that follows secondary education. Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). This Court have seen
the distinction of when immigration policies do not have a substantial interest, more specifically,
violate the equal protection of Fourteenth Amendment of the United States constitution. In Re
Griffiths, 413 U.S. 497 (1973). This Supreme Court, handling the authority of the constitution,
hold delicately when the federal government constructs an immigration law. Arizona v. United
States, 132 U.S. 2492 (2012).
iii. Congress has a rational interest to preserve seats in higher
education.
While thirty percent of the immigrant population that are within the jurisdiction of the
United States are undocumented, between five to ten percent of them are enrolled in higher. The
Record, 2. The Fair Education Act was devised to ensure that those who are benefiting from
higher education system will give back to the United States. Every seat that is unaccounted for
will go to an undocumented person. Postsecondary education has become a more paramount
decision for most students, with the advancement of the current era, degrees will be required
more than diplomas. Congress enactment of the Fair Education Act is comparable with the
Immigration Reform and Control Act, which this Court held to be a valid statue to dis-incentivize
employment for undocumented immigrants. Arizona v. United States, 132 U.S. 2492 (2012). The
consistency of Fair Education Act is similar in comparison by evidently attempting to preserve

positions and to dis-incentivize unlawful entry. The Record, 2. In Mathew v. Diaz, Permanent
residency and duration, if these requirements were eliminated surely Congress would at lease
require that the aliens entry be lawful. It is unquestionably reasonable for congress to make an
aliens eligibility depend on both the character and the duration of his residence, because neither
requirement is wholly irrational. Mathew v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67 (1976). This immigration policy
may produce some harsh and apparently arbitrary consequences it remains true some line is
essential, whether its denying undocumented immigrants higher education, Congress is drawing
that line with the Fair Education Act.
B. A.R.H. fails to show an equal protection violation between aliens and citizens.
1. A.R.H.s opportunity for higher education is being delay and not
prohibited.
The Fair Education does not prevent immigrants from obtaining higher education. The
efforts behind the statue was to allow immigrants to continue their pursuit of higher education by
going through the proper avenues. The Record, 2. This Court has extended the equal protection
of the Fourteenth Amendment of the constitution to aliens. Wong Wing v. United States, 163 U.S.
228 (1896). Discrimination and upholding the prohibition of equal protection, based on raise, has
always been found to be unconstitutional. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 972 (1954).
A.R.Hs claims the Fair Education Act treats similar situated persons dissimilarly as in Bolling v.
Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497 (1954). In Bolling, the Federal District of Columbia denied a students
admissions in certain schools based on race, which was found to be unconstitutional. This Court
has held that treating similarly persons differently in regards to welfare in Weinberger v.
Wiesenfeld, 420 U.S. 636 (1975) and Graham v. Richardson, 403 U.S. 365 (1971). were a
violation of equal protection. In Re Griffiths, Francis Le Poole Griffith was able to continue her

pursuit of taking the bar examination in the state of Connecticut, regardless of alienage, this
Court has established that immigrants are more than qualified to receive a higher education. The
Fair Education Act does not deny Francis Griffith or any other legal residing alien the
opportunity to receive a postsecondary education. This Court has held that classifications
between aliens was permissible when Congress imposed statues restricting undocumented
immigrants from receiving privileges. In Mathew v. Diaz, the question presented before the court
was Not whether discrimination between citizens and aliens were permissible but whether the
statutory discrimination within the class of aliens was permissible. Mathew v. Diaz, 426 U.S. 67
(1976).
2. Higher education, a privilege, has never been found to be a fundamental
right.
In Plyer v. Doe, this Court has ruled that primary and secondary education is a right given
to undocumented immigrants in order to stop the creation of a shadow class of citizens that will
ultimately stay in the United States for several years to life. The Supreme Court has not found
education to be a fundamental right, fundamental rights are those that are explicitly or implicitly
are guaranteed by the United States constitution. Plyer v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982). In Graham
v. Richardson, states whatever is a privilege, rather than a right, may be dependent upon
citizenship. Congress enacted the Fair Education Act with the authority of the constitution, a
plenary power guaranteed. Art. 1, 8, cl. 4. A.R.H. claim to higher education is invalidated as she
fails to draw the distinction between undocumented and legal immigrants. If this Court does rule
on whether or not to guarantee higher education as a fundamental right, with respect, ought to
take into consider the implication of the creating education as a right. The endowment of having
education overall be a fundamental right leads to a logical deduction that there will be several

policy implication, because not only can no college or university deny persons their newly found
right but it also omits the prestige credibility of high ranking schools. Several factors would need
to be taken into consider if this court did indeed decide to do so.
C. A.R.H. fails to validate their arguments because this Court has yet to make a
ruling applicable to the present case.
Cases such as Bernal v. Fainter, In re Griffiths, and Plyer v. Doe, analysis of the cases
pertain to states government who lack the authority to create immigration policy to protect their
states. The holding applied in Graham v. Richardson pertains to legal aliens in which were being
treated unfairly by not receiving social security benefits. Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld and Bolling v.
Sharpe, are not comparable to A.R.H. because both were held at a standard of strict scrutiny and
were being prohibited indefinitely with no other alternatives to ever being able to be treated
equally. The preceding cases do not deal properly with the circumstances in which A.R.H. has
been placed upon. There is no equal protection violation because aliens are not being denied the
opportunity to receive a higher education. A.R.H has several remedies in which she can turn to
but yet fails to take different avenues to give her the opportunity to obtain a post-secondary
education.