Mathews v. Diaz

Brief Fact Summary.

The Secretary appealed to the issue of whether Congress may condition an alien’s eligibility for participation in a federal medical insurance program on continuous residence in the United States for a five-year period and admission for permanent residence.

Synopsis of Rule of Law.

Even one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to the constitutional protection under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.

Facts.

Congress has placed a condition an alien’s eligibility for participation in a federal medical insurance program on continuous residence in the United States for a five-year period and admission for permanent residence. The district court held that the first condition was unconstitutional and that it could not be severed from the second.

Issue.

May Congress condition an alien’s eligibility for participation in a federal medical insurance program on continuous residence in the United States for a five-year period and admission for permanent residence?

Held.

Yes, both conditions are constitutional. Whereas the Constitution inhibits every State’s power to restrict travel across its own borders, Congress is explicitly empowered to exercise that type of control over travel across the borders of the United States. It is not political hypocrisy to recognize that the Fourteenth Amendment’s limits on state powers are substantially different from the constitutional provisions applicable to the federal power over immigration and naturalization.

Discussion.

The responsibility for regulating the relationship between the United States and our alien visitors has been committed to the political branches of the federal government. Any rule of constitutional law that would inhibit the flexibility of the political branches of government to respond to changing world conditions should be adopted only with the greatest caution. It is completely reasonable for Congress to make an alien’s eligibility depend on both the character and the duration of his residence. Since neither requirement is wholly irrational, this case essentially involves nothing more than a claim that it would have been more reasonable for Congress to select somewhat different requirements of the same kind. Thus, the statute at issue does not deprive appellees of liberty or property.