The Oyez Project Virtual Tour of the Supreme Court Building

Abstract

Argument: Monday, January 10, 1983
Decision: Monday, May 2, 1983
Issues: Civil Rights, Residency Requirements

Advocates

Richard L. Arnett (Argued the cause for the respondents)
Edward J. Tuddenham (Argued the cause for the petitioner)

Facts of the Case

A Texas law permitted public school districts to deny tuition-free admission to minors living apart from their parents if their primary purpose of living in the district was to attend school free of charge. Roberto Morales left his family in Mexico to live with his sister, Oralia Martinez, in Texas. When the school district denied Morales' application for free admission, Martinez challenged the law in court.

Question

Did the Texas law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion

No. In an 8-to-1 decision, the Court held that the Constitution permitted states to restrict eligibility for tuition-free education to bona-fide residents. The Court found that the Texas requirement was "far more generous" than traditional residency requirements, since it extended benefits to many children even if they did not intend to remain in a school district indefinitely. No violation of the Equal Protection Clause was found.

Supreme Court Justice Opinions and Votes (by Seniority)

Sort by Ideology
(More information here)
Decision: 8 votes for Bynum, 1 vote(s) against
Legal Provision: Equal Protection
Voted with the majority
Burger
Wrote a regular concurrence
Brennan
Voted with the majority
White
Wrote a dissent
Marshall
Voted with the majority
Blackmun
Wrote the majority opinion
Powell
Voted with the majority
Rehnquist
Voted with the majority
Stevens
Voted with the majority
O'Connor
Full Opinion by Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr.

Cite this page

The Oyez Project, Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 (1983),
available at: <http://www.oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1982/1982_81_857/>
(last visited ).