The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments Tuesday in a constitutional challenge to Montana's residency requirements for professional students seeking in-state tuition rates. Nine former students argue the Montana University System's policy violates their due process and equal protection rights by locking them into paying out-of-state tuition rates throughout their enrollment.
Under Montana state code, professional students defined as those studying law, pharmacy or physical therapy must live in the state for a full year before starting school to qualify for in-state tuition. The policy creates a catch-22 situation: once students move to Montana and begin their studies, their time in the state does not count toward establishing residency for tuition purposes.
The financial impact is substantial. New Montana residents classified as out-of-state students pay more than four times the rate of Montana residents who have lived in the state for 12 months without pursuing an education. This disparity can result in tens of thousands of dollars in additional tuition costs over the course of a professional degree program.
"The policy is unconstitutional on its face, and it is applied to them," argued Geoffrey Angel, the attorney representing the students before the appeals court. Angel contended that the constitutional violation affects every professional student caught in this residency classification system.
The case originated in 2023 when nine professional students sued the Montana University System, challenging the residency requirements on constitutional grounds. The plaintiffs argued the policy violated their Fourteenth Amendment rights by preventing residency reclassification while enrolled in professional programs.
The U.S. District Court initially ruled in favor of the university system, finding the students' constitutional claims lacked merit. The lower court also determined that both the university system and individual Board of Regents members had immunity from the lawsuit. This adverse ruling prompted the students to appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
During Tuesday's oral arguments, Angel emphasized that the policy creates an unfair timing problem for students. "The constitutional violation is complete for every professional student," he argued, explaining that students cannot achieve residency status regardless of their intent or actions while enrolled.
The attorney revealed that Montana Commissioner of Higher Education Clayton Christian established the rule specifically to control the proportion of in-state to out-of-state students in professional programs due to limited seat availability. This admission suggests the policy serves as an enrollment management tool rather than a legitimate residency determination mechanism.
"The problem we're dealing with here is one of timing. People did not get a fair shake before because the policy said what it said and applied," Angel told the three-judge panel.
The Montana University System's policy has evolved over time. Before the lawsuit was filed, the system's policy stated that all out-of-state students enrolled in professional degree programs would remain classified as nonresidents for their entire enrollment period. In July 2023, facing legal pressure, the university system amended the policy to require students to maintain primary residency in Montana for a consecutive year before starting school.
However, the policy change may have come too late for the plaintiffs. Of the nine students named in the lawsuit, seven moved away from Montana after graduating. Angel argued this exodus resulted partly from the financial burden of nonresident student debt accumulated during their studies.
The university system counters that the students' post-graduation departures demonstrate a lack of genuine intent to establish Montana residency. This argument suggests the students used their enrollment as a temporary pathway to professional education rather than seeking to become permanent Montana residents.
The case highlights broader tensions between state budget constraints and student mobility in professional education. Professional programs in law, pharmacy, and physical therapy often attract students from across state lines due to limited program availability and specialized training requirements.
The Ninth Circuit's eventual ruling could impact similar residency policies at public universities throughout the western United States. Other states maintain comparable restrictions on residency reclassification for professional students, citing concerns about subsidizing education for students unlikely to remain in-state after graduation.
The constitutional questions center on whether states can categorically prevent residency reclassification based solely on enrollment status. The students argue this creates an irrebuttable presumption that violates due process rights by denying them any opportunity to demonstrate genuine residency intent.
Equal protection concerns arise from the disparate treatment of professional students compared to other graduate students who can typically reclassify their residency status after meeting durational requirements. The policy creates distinct classes of students with different rights based on their chosen field of study.
The Ninth Circuit has not indicated when it will issue its opinion. The court's decision will determine whether Montana's professional student residency policy can withstand constitutional scrutiny and may influence similar policies at public universities nationwide. For current and future professional students, the outcome could significantly impact the affordability and accessibility of specialized education programs.