IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSOURI ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Div. Introduction

Transcription

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY THIRTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT STATE OF MISSOURI JANE DOE, v. Plaintiff, METROPOLITAN COMMUNITY COLLEGE OF KANSAS CITY, Defendant. Cause No. Div. PETITION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Introduction 1. Plaintiff, Jane Doe, brings this action for declaratory judgment, pursuant to , RSMo., seeking a judgment finding that the preamble language to H.B. 3, 98th Gen. Assemb. 1st Reg. Sess. (Mo ( House Bill 3 is unenforceable and that Defendants are violating , RSMo. (2014 and 6 CSR (2013 by billing at the nonresident rate for tuition and fees related to Plaintiff s attendance at Metropolitan Community College of Kansas City (MCC. Parties 2. Doe is a resident of Independence, Missouri. 3. Metropolitan Community College of Kansas City is a Missouri institution of higher education created by statutes of the state of Missouri. Facts 4. Doe arrived in the United States with her parents in the mid-2000s when she was 1

2 three years old. 5. Her parents instilled in her a desire to work hard and achieve a better life for herself. Doe has long planned on attending college to further her dreams. 6. Doe did many hours of community service during high school. 7. In December 2012, Doe applied for and received a favorable Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA determination from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS. She renewed her application and received another favorable determination in Upon graduation from high school, Doe attended Johnson County Community College in Kansas part-time. Doe received some scholarships but not enough to cover the entire cost of attendance. 9. While attending JCCC, Doe worked full-time in the fast-food industry sometimes more than 40 hours per week to afford her tuition. She also completed an internship. 10. Doe had no transportation of her own, so she chose classes that would match her classmates schedules in order to carpool. 11. In the spring semester of 2014, Doe transferred to MCC s Penn Valley campus in order to be closer to home and to gain the benefit of in-district tuition. 12. After transferring, Doe continued working two part-time jobs to support herself and continue her education. 13. Doe continued attending MCC Penn Valley until the fall semester of MCC charges in-district tuition to students who reside within the community college district. In-district tuition costs $95 per credit hour. 15. The district includes the cities of Belton, Blue Springs, Center, Fort Osage, Grandview, Hickman Mills, Kansas City, Independence, Lee s Summit, North Kansas City, Park 2

3 Hill, and Raytown. 16. Doe resides in Independence. 17. MCC charges in-state (but out-of-district tuition to students who reside in the state of Missouri but not within the community college district. In-state tuition costs $175 per credit hour. 18. MCC charges out-of-state tuition to students who do not reside in the state of Missouri. Out-of-state tuition costs $229 per credit hour. 19. Throughout 2014 and in the spring semester of 2015, MCC charged Doe the indistrict tuition rate of $95 per credit hour. 20. Because of the increase in tuition to the out-of-state rate, Doe could not continue her enrollment in fall 2015 and dropped out. She is considering how much she can save in order to attend school next semester. 21. Charging Doe a tuition rate higher than what is charged to other residents who pay in-state and in-district tuition rates places an increased financial burden on Doe. 22. In addition to the burden of higher tuition rates, the burden on Doe is marked because she does not qualify for federal financial tuition assistance. 23. On May 8, 2015, Governor Jay Nixon signed House Bill House Bill 3 is an appropriations bill passed by the Missouri legislature, which appropriates money for the Department of Higher Education. 25. Contained in the preamble of House Bill 3 is the following language: no funds shall be expended at public institutions of higher education that offer a tuition rate to any student with an unlawful immigration status in the United States that is less than the tuition rate charged to international students[.] Preamble, H.B. 3, 98th Gen. Assemb. 1st Reg. Sess. (Mo

4 26. Defendant is charging Doe tuition at the nonresident rate solely because of the preamble language in House Bill Governor Jay Nixon signed House Bill 3 into law knowing the preamble language was not enforceable and was contrary to already existing law. 28. After Governor Nixon signed House Bill 3, his spokesperson stated that, The Governor has been quite clear in order to change the law, you have to pass legislation. The language in the enacting clause of House Bill 3 or in the enacting clause of any other bill is not legally binding nor is it enforceable. DACA students have worked hard, played by the rules, and been given a status by the federal government. Denying them the opportunity to receive an affordable college education is not fair, nor is it consistent with current state law. See Ex. 1, Marshall Griffin, Undocumented students in Missouri want to reverse suddenly higher tuition, (Jul. 30, Upon information and belief, Defendant will continue to follow the preamble language in House Bill 3 as if it were law unless and until this Court directs Defendant to discontinue its practice of following the preamble. 30. The language in the preamble is not found in the main text of the House Bill The language in the preamble was never intended to prevent Missouri schools from charging in-state tuition to DACA students, including Doe. 32. State Representative Scott Fitzpatrick, the bill s sponsor, has emphasized that universities can still charge DACA students in-state tuition; they just cannot use state funding to do so. See Ex. 1, Aine O Connor, After three-word budget bill change, Missouri DACA students hit with higher tuition, 4

5 change-missouri-daca-students-hit-higher-tuition (Aug. 11, State Representative Scott Fitzpatrick has further represented that, [t]he budget bill does not prohibit in-state tuition. It just prohibits the dollars that we appropriated from being spent with the university who supplies in-state tuition to those students. See Ex. 1. Count I Declaratory Judgment 34. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in each preceding paragraph as if each were set forth here verbatim. 35. It is a well-established rule of statutory interpretation that preambles to statutes do not create substantive law. See Lackland v. Walker, 52 S.W. 414, 430 (Mo When statutes are ambiguous, preambles can be used to interpret statutory enactments but, on their own, preambles are not binding statutory authority. Lett v. City of St. Louis, 948 S.W.2d 614, 617 (Mo. App. E.D House Bill 3 is unambiguous. 37. The preamble language in House Bill 3 does not have a binding or any statutory effect. 38. The preamble language in House Bill 3 is unenforceable. 39. Plaintiff s legal rights are affected by the current enforcement of the preamble language in House Bill In the absence of the preamble language in House Bill 3, Doe is a resident of the District and the State for purposes of regulations governing resident tuition. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for: A. Entry of judgment, including a declaratory judgment, that the preamble language to House Bill 3 does not have a binding effect on Defendant and is unenforceable 5

6 by Defendant; B. Preliminary and permanent injunctions preventing Defendant from enforcing, threatening to enforce, or giving any legal effect to the preamble to Missouri House Bill 3; and C. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. Count II Declaratory Judgment 41. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in each preceding paragraph as if each were set forth here verbatim. 42. Plaintiff is a resident of the Metropolitan Community College District. 43. Plaintiff is a Missouri resident and possesses resident alien status, as determined by federal authority. 44. Pursuant to MCC policy, , RSMo., and 6 CSR , Plaintiff is entitled to in-district tuition at MCC. 45. Plaintiff s legal rights are affected by MCC s failure to apply , RSMo. and 6 CSR WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for: A. Entry of judgment, including a declaratory judgment, that Plaintiff is entitled to in-district tuition pursuant to , RSMo. and 6 CSR , and MCC policy; B. In the alternative, entry of judgment, including a declaratory judgment, that Plaintiff is entitled to in-state tuition pursuant to , RSMo. and 6 CSR ; and C. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper. 6

7 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Anthony E. Rothert Anthony E. Rothert, #44827 Jessie Steffan, #64861 ACLU of Missouri Foundation 454 Whittier Street St. Louis, Missouri Phone: ( Gillian R. Wilcox, #61278 ACLU of Missouri Foundation 3601 Main Street Kansas City, Missouri Phone: ( Attorneys for Plaintiff 7