Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York, et al. v. Mauclet et al.
The court ruled on whether state governments have the authority to deny permanent immigrants access to tuition assistance or loans for higher educational institutions.
432 U.S. 1 · No. 76-208 · 1976 term · Burger Court
Decided Jun 13, 1977 · argued Mar 22, 1977
Civil rights · Immigration and naturalization: access to public education
Struck down a state law
Majority opinion: Harry Blackmun
The voteMajorityDissent
5–45 in the majority, 4 in dissent
4 dissents (5–4)
Affirmed. Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York, et al. lost.
What this ruling means
Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).
Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York, et al. was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.
From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.
Summary
The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.
Nyquist v. Mauclet, 432 U.S. 1 (1977), is a United States Supreme Court case where the court ruled on whether state governments have the authority to deny permanent immigrants access to tuition assistance or loans for higher educational institutions. In a five to four decision, the court sided with Mauclet and ruled that such action is considered discriminatory against those with an immigrant status. This case brought forth important questions about whether the denial of education benefits to immigrants could be considered a form of discrimination as well as reaffirmed the federal government's authority over states in cases of immigration law.
Data notes
The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.
How the justices voted
Each justice who took part, placed by their Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 1976 term. Filled: the 5 in the majority. Hollow: the 4 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.
Majority(5)
Harry BlackmunWrote the majority opinion
William BrennanJoined the majority
Thurgood MarshallJoined the majority
John StevensJoined the majority
Byron WhiteJoined the majority
Dissent(4)
Lewis PowellWrote a dissent
Warren BurgerWrote a dissent
William RehnquistWrote a dissent
Potter StewartJoined a dissent
Data notes
Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.
Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term, the same scores as the Ideology page: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.
The parties
Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.
- Petitioner
- Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York, et al.State (New York)
- Respondent
- Mauclet et al.Alien, person subject to a denaturalization proceeding, or one whose citizenship is revoked
- Reached the Court by
- Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes
The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.
The law at issue
The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.
- Provision
- Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
- Kind of law
- Constitutional Amendment
- Decided by
- Judicial review (state level)
- Struck down
- A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes
The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.
Timeline
What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.
- Jun 13, 1977DecidedDecided · Decided 5–4: affirmed. Nyquist, Commissioner of Education of New York, et al. lost.
- Mar 22, 1977ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
- Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
- Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Decided by the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit: affirmed.
- Not datedBeganBegan · The case began in the New York Western U.S. District Court.
Data notes
From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.
Other decisions on the same issue
2 other argued cases since 1946 on immigration and naturalization: access to public education, newest first.
- Toll, President, University of Maryland, et al. v. Moreno et al.458 U.S. 1Jun 28, 1982 · 458 U.S. 1Civil rights6–36–3 band
- Plyler, Superintendent, Tyler Independent School District, et al. v. Doe, Guardian, et al.Landmark · Other areas457 U.S. 202Jun 15, 1982 · 457 U.S. 202Civil rightsLandmark · Other areas5–45–4 band
Data notes
Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.
Official record
Read the full opinion on Justia, the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.