U.S. Code » Title 8 » Chapter CHAPTER 14— RESTRICTING WELFARE AND PUBLIC BENEFITS FOR ALIENS › Subchapter SUBCHAPTER II— ELIGIBILITY FOR STATE AND LOCAL PUBLIC BENEFITS PROGRAMS

8 U.S.C. § 1623

Limitation on eligibility for preferential treatment of aliens not lawfully present on basis of residence for higher education benefits

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 8 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) In general

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.

(b) Effective date

This section shall apply to benefits provided on or after July 1, 1998.

(Pub. L. 104–208, div. C, title V, § 505, Sept. 30, 1996, 110 Stat. 3009–672.)Editorial NotesCodification

Section was enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, and not as part of title IV of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 which comprises this chapter.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (6 in the last 5 years), 1992–2026 · leading case: State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State ex rel. Brnovich v. Maricopa County Community College District Board (2017) arizctapp · cites it 18× “3009 , 3681 (1996) (codified as 8 U.S.C. § 1623 ). PRWORA was generally enacted “to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits,” 8 U.”
Day v. Bond (2007) ca10 · cites it 8× “citizens who are not Kansas residents in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is preempted by 8 U.S.C. § 1623 , a provision of federal immigration law.”
De Vries v. Regents of the University of California (2016) calctapp · cites it 2× “1284, 1294; see 8 U.S.C. § 1623 ).) With respect to section 1621, the plaintiffs alleged the defendants, including the Regents, the board of trustees of the California State University, the California community colleges, and officials representing those entities, unlawfully…”
Day v. Sebelius (2005) ksd · cites it 8× “In Count 2, which is entitled “Violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1623 ,” plaintiffs assert that K.”
State v. Maricopa Cnty. Cmty. Coll. Dist. Bd. (2018) ariz · cites it 2× “See 8 U.S.C. § 1623 (a). Similarly, Arizona law bars in-state classification of certain students lacking lawful immigration status.”
Young Conservatives v. Smatresk (2023) ca5 · cites it 3× “051(d), which YCT believed was preempted by 8 U.S.C. § 1623 (a). Sometime after removal, the parties cross-motioned for summary judgment and the district court sided with YCT.”
Equal Access Education v. Merten (2004) vaed · cites it 2× “See 8 U.S.C. § 1623 (a). Plaintiffs thus argue that because it is only possible to discuss in-state tuition if a student has already been admitted to a public college or university, Congress has implicitly recognized that illegal aliens might be attending public post-secondary…”
Martinez v. Regents of University of California (2010) cal “*1284 ( 8 U.S.C. § 1623 (section 1623).) Plaintiffs challenge section 68130.”
Doe v. St. Louis Community College (2017) moctapp “Equally troublesome is the absence of discussion of other federal authorities that would appear to have relevance here. The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act ( 8 U.”
United States v. Patrick L. Swindall (1992) ca11 “Í8 U.S.C. § 1623 provides, in part: “Whoever under oath .”
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Wilson (1997) cacd “8 U.S.C. § 1623 (a). Because the IRA defines alien eligibility for postsecondary education, it also manifests Congress’ intent to occupy this field.”
Ruiz v. Robinson (2012) flsd “8 U.S.C. § 1623 (emphasis added). Defendants claim that because the State does not extend tuition benefits to all U.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.