Dandamudi v. Tisch
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
686 F.3d 66 (2012)
- Written by Kelsey Libby, JD
Facts
A group of nonimmigrant aliens (the pharmacists) (plaintiffs) residing in New York obtained pharmacist licenses pursuant to a statutory waiver to New York Education Law § 6805(1)(6), which provided that only United States citizens and legal permanent residents (LPRs) were eligible to obtain pharmacist licenses. Most of the pharmacists had H1-B or TN visas that legally authorized them to live and work in the United States, and all had been in the country legally for more than six years, many with plans to obtain LPR status. The waiver of § 6805(1)(6) was scheduled to expire in 2009. The pharmacists sued the state (defendant) to enjoin enforcement of § 6805(1)(6), arguing that the law violated the Equal Protection Clause and Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The district court agreed and granted the pharmacists’ motion for summary judgment. The state appealed, arguing that the court should adopt a new exception to the ordinary rule that laws that disadvantage aliens must pass strict-scrutiny review. The state argued that suspect-class status should apply only to immigrants who were virtual citizens, like LPRs, and not to nonimmigrant aliens.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wesley, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
