On March 9, 2015, Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich responded to a letter from Arizona representatives Raul Grijalva, Ruben Gallego, and Ann Kirkpatrick inquiring as to in-state tuition for DACA recipients. Brnovich dismissed their request to allow those without lawful status in the United States to be able to pay in-state tuition at Arizona schools.
Grijalva, Gallego, and Kirkpatrick wrote a scathing letter to Brnovich on March 3, urging him to drop the lawsuit and stop any future action against the Maricopa County Community College District for granting in-state tuition to DACA recipients.
The trio, who are not normally concerned about taxpayer dollars, took a keen interest in them in their effort to attack Brnovich and stop the lawsuit. Gallego urged “Attorney General Brnovich to stop using our state resources for political purposes, drop this lawsuit and stop any future actions to deny in-state tuition to DACA recipients.”
Grijalva said, “The people of Arizona deserve more for their tax dollars than this ideological attack on students who simply want to learn and contribute to the only nation they’ve known as home. MCCCD is well within state and federal laws in allowing DACA beneficiaries to be considered for in-state tuition rates. The fact that our former Attorney General would squander tax money on litigation against MCCCD over this was bad enough.”
In response, Brnovich noted that Arizona taxpayer, in November of 2006, passed Proposition 300 “with more than 70% of the vote, reserving certain taxpayer funded benefits to citizens, legal residents, and persons who otherwise have lawful immigration status.” Brnovich wrote, “The voters were clear on this subject:
“A person who is not a citizen of the United States, who is without lawful immigration status and who is enrolled as a student at any university under the jurisdiction of the Arizona board of regents or at any community college under the jurisdiction of a community college district in this state is not entitled to tuition waivers, fee waivers, grants, scholarship assistance, financial aid, tuition assistance or any other type of financial assistance that is subsidized or paid in whole or in part with state monies.” (A.R.S. § 15-1825(A)).”
Brnovich advised the trio that the “United States Citizenship and Immigration Service, which you cite with authority, makes clear that “[D]eferred Action does not confer lawful status upon an individual.” In Arizona Dream Act Coalition v. Brewer the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that “DACA recipients enjoy no formal immigration status.” Indeed, the Constitution reserves this power for Congress.”
Brnovich claimed that his oath to uphold and enforce the law and to defend Arizona’s constitution, left him no choice but to defend the law passed by the people of Arizona who “have spoken unambiguously.”