AGO 1991-017.
Case Date: | May 10, 1991 |
Court: | Connecticut |
FREE EXCERPT
Connecticut Attorney General Opinions
1991.
AGO 1991-017.
May 10, 1991Opinion No. 1991-017Dr. Andrew McKirdyExecutive DirectorBoard of Trustees of Community Technical
Colleges61 Woodland StreetHartford, CT 06105
Dear Dr. McKirdy:
We are writing in response to your letter dated January 9, 1991,
in which you request our advice about the constitutionality of the residency
requirement contained in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10a-77(d)(2), a statute
concerning tuition waives for eligible veterans. In an opinion issued on April
11, 1990, we concluded that the residency requirements and waiting periods
contained in three statutes concerning veteran benefits (Conn. Gen. Stat.
27-103, 27-104, and 27-122b) are unconstitutional. You are asking whether, in
light of that opinion, the residency requirement contained in Section 10a-77(d)
is also unconstitutional. For the reasons discussed below, it is our opinion
that it is.
The statute in question requires the Board of Trustees of
Community-Technical Colleges to waive tuition for veterans who served during
time of war and have been accepted for admission, provided the veteran was a
Connecticut resident when he entered the service or as a Connecticut resident
while serving and is a resident at the time he is accepted for admission. Thus,
any veteran who establishes residence in Connecticut after serving in the armed
forced during time of war is not and never will be eligible for the tuition
waiver mandated by Section 10a-77(d)(2).
Residency requirements which simply distinguish between residents
and nonresidents are permissible. Residency requirements which treat
established residents differently depending upon when they moved into the state
raise constitutional questions based on the right to equal protection of the
laws. Attorney General of New York v. Soto-Lopez, 476 U.S. 898 (1986). Our
opinion of last year provided a thorough review of the equal protection
analysis to which residency requirements have been subjected by the United
States Supreme Court. for purposes of the immediate response we will summarize
our earlier analysis and attach a copy of our 1990 opinion for your
reflection.
An equal protection challenge to a statute or regulation
basically asserts that similarly situated citizens are being treated
differently and demands that the state justify its reasons for enacting a law
that...
To continue reading
FREE SIGN UP