Opinion
No. 90-977
Submitted March 6, 1991 —
Decided May 1, 1991.
Selective Service — Student Loan Commission — Education — State universities — Failure to file statement of selective service status — R.C. 3345.32(C), (D) and (E) are constitutional.
O.Jur 3d Schools § 370.
1. R.C. 3345.32(C), (D) and (E) do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio Constitution.
2. R.C. 3345.32(C) does not violate Section 32, Article II of the Ohio Constitution.
APPEAL and CROSS-APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Franklin County, No. 89AP-277.
Prior to 1987, Michael M. Klepper, appellee and cross-appellant, was enrolled as an undergraduate student at the Ohio State University ("OSU"), an appellant and cross-appellee. While attending OSU, appellee, an Ohio resident, was required to pay the in-state tuition rate established for Ohio residents and he financed his education, in part, with Ohio Instructional Grants.
See R.C. 3333.12.
In 1986, the General Assembly enacted R.C. 3345.32. R.C. 3345.32(C) requires that a "state university or college," such as OSU, charge all male students born after December 31, 1959, any tuition surcharge applicable to students who are not Ohio residents if the student fails to file a "statement of selective service status" with the state university or college. A statement of selective service status certifies that the student is either registered with the selective service system in accordance with the Military Selective Service Act, or that he is not required to register. R.C. 3345.32(D) prohibits the Ohio Student Loan Commission from granting or guaranteeing a loan for any male student born after December 31, 1959, who fails to file the statement with the commission and, pursuant to R.C. 3345.32(E), the student is also ineligible for, inter alia, instructional grants unless he has filed the statement with appellant and cross-appellee Ohio Board of Regents. These statutory mandates were first implemented at OSU beginning in the winter quarter of 1987.
R.C. 3345.32(A)(1) provides as follows:
"`State university or college' means the institutions described in section 3345.27 of the Revised Code, the northeastern Ohio universities college of medicine, and the medical college of Ohio at Toledo."
See R.C. 3345.32(A)(1), 3345.27(A) and 3345.011.
R.C. 3345.32(A)(3) provides:
"`Statement of selective service status' means a statement certifying one of the following:
"(a) That the individual filing the statement has registered with the selective service system in accordance with the `Military Selective Service Act,' 62 Stat. 604, 50 U.S.C. App. 453, as amended;
"(b) That the individual filing the statement is not required to register with the selective service for one of the following reasons:
"(i) He is under eighteen or over twenty-six years of age;
"(ii) He is on active duty with the armed forces of the United States other than for training in a reserve or national guard unit;
"(iii) He is a nonimmigrant alien lawfully in the United States in accordance with section 101(a)(15) of the `Immigration and Nationality Act,' U.S.C. § 1101, as amended;
"(iv) He is not a citizen of the United States and is a permanent resident of the trust territory of the Pacific Islands or the Northern Mariana Islands[.]"
See App. 453, Title 50, U.S. Code.
See R.C. 3345.32(B).
Appellee was born after December 31, 1959 and is required by law to register with the selective service system. However, based upon his opposition to a military draft, appellee did not register with selective service and, therefore, he was unable to honestly file a "statement of selective service status" referenced in R.C. 3345.32. As a result, in January 1987, the beginning of the winter quarter at OSU, appellee was charged an out-of-state tuition surcharge and was denied instructional grants based upon his failure to file a statement of selective service status. Consequently, appellee claims he was unable to continue his education at OSU.
On October 26, 1987, appellee filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County against appellants and cross-appellees, the Ohio Board of Regents, OSU, and the Ohio Attorney General. In his complaint, appellee sought to have R.C. 3345.32 declared unconstitutional and, further, sought to enjoin appellants from enforcing the statute.
Subsequently, appellants moved for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ. R. 12(C). The trial court granted appellants' motion and held that R.C. 3345.32 does not contravene the Ohio Constitution.
Civ. R. 12(C) provides as follows:
"After pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party may move for judgment on the pleadings."
On appeal, the court of appeals determined that R.C. 3345.32(C) violates Section 2, Article I, and Section 32, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. Accordingly, the court of appeals reversed, in part, the judgment of the trial court. However, the court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court with regard to the constitutionality of R.C. 3345.32(D) and (E).
The cause is now before this court pursuant to the allowance of a motion and cross-motion to certify the record.
James C. McNamara, for appellee and cross-appellant.
Lee I. Fisher, attorney general, Lauren M. Ross, Christopher M. Culley and Gary E. Brown, for appellants and cross-appellees.
Appellants' appeal challenges the judgment of the court of appeals with respect to the constitutionality of R.C. 3345.32(C), and appellee's cross-appeal seeks reversal of that portion of the judgment which upheld the constitutionality of R.C. 3345.32(D) and (E).
The court of appeals determined that R.C. 3345.32(C) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio Constitution and that R.C. 3345.32(D) and (E) do not. For the following reasons, we hold that R.C. 3345.32(C), (D) and (E) do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio Constitution.
Section 2, Article I of the Ohio Constitution provides as follows:
"All political power is inherent in the people. Government is instituted for their equal protection and benefit, and they have the right to alter, reform, or abolish the same, whenever they may deem it necessary; and no special privileges or immunities shall ever be granted, that may not be altered, revoked, or repealed by the general assembly." (Emphasis added.)
R.C. 3345.32(C) provides that:
"A state university or college that enrolls in any course, class, or program a male student born after December 31, 1959 who has not filed a statement of selective service status with the university or college shall, regardless of the student's residency, charge him any tuition surcharge charged students who are not residents of this state."
R.C. 3345.32(C) affects a certain "class" or group of individuals consisting of all male Ohio residents born after December 31, 1959 who attend a state university or college and who fail to certify that they have registered with the selective service system as required by law. The members of this classification are subject to the tuition rate applicable to non-residents. R.C. 3345.32(C) has no impact on non-resident students attending a state university or college since non-resident students are subject to the out-of-state tuition rates whether or not they have registered with selective service. Further, R.C. 3345.32(C) has no impact on male Ohio residents who attend a university or college which is not state supported.
A statutory classification which involves neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio Constitution if the classification is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Menefee v. Queen City Metro (1990), 49 Ohio St.3d 27, 29, 550 N.E.2d 181, 182. R.C. 3345.32(C) involves neither a suspect class nor a fundamental right.
The purpose of R.C. 3345.32(C) is clear. R.C. 3345.32(C) is meant to encourage compliance with the federal selective service registration requirements. In our judgment, Ohio has a legitimate interest, as does any state, in helping to promote the objectives of the federal government in providing for a common defense. To the extent that a military draft would be necessary to ensure the safety of our country, each of the several states has a considerable stake in the maintenance of a readily available national military force to protect the country and the interests of the individual states. Thus, encouraging selective service registration is not only a federal interest, but is also a basis for legitimate state concern.
Having established that the underlying purpose of R.C. 3345.32(C) involves a legitimate state interest, we must next determine whether R.C. 3345.32(C) creates a classification which is rationally related to advancing that interest. Menefee, supra. R.C. 3345.32(C) affects all male Ohio residents born after December 31, 1959 who attend state universities or colleges and who fail to certify that they have registered with the selective service system as required by law. These individuals are subject to a higher, non-subsidized tuition rate. Thus, R.C. 3345.32(C) furthers Ohio's legitimate interests in encouraging compliance with the federal selective service registration requirements by denying Ohio residents the benefit of state-subsidized tuition rates for failure to comply with the federal law.
However, the court of appeals found that R.C. 3345.32(C) does not affect all similarly situated people in a similar manner since it does not affect Ohio residents who attend private institutions or non-residents who attend state-supported schools. Therefore, the court of appeals determined that the classification established by R.C. 3345.32(C) is not rationally related to the achievement of Ohio's legitimate interests. We disagree.
A statutory classification does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio Constitution if it distinguishes individuals as dissimilar upon some logical basis. Non-residents who attend state-supported schools and Ohio residents who attend private institutions are not similarly affected by R.C. 3345.32(C) because these individuals normally do not enjoy the benefits of state-subsidized tuition rates. Thus, non-residents who attend state-supported schools and Ohio residents who attend private institutions may properly be excluded from the classification created by R.C. 3345.32(C) because they are not similarly situated to those who fall within the statutory classification.
Therefore, R.C. 3345.32(C) does treat all similarly situated individuals in a similar manner, and the classification is not unreasonable or arbitrary. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that R.C. 3345.32(C) is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest and, applying Menefee, we hold that R.C. 3345.32(C) does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio Constitution.
R.C. 3345.32(D) and (E) provide as follows:
"(D) The Ohio student loan commission shall not make or guarantee a loan under Chapter 3351. of the Revised Code to any male born after December 31, 1959 unless he has filed a statement of selective service status with the commission.
"(E) No male born after December 31, 1959 shall be eligible to receive any loan, grant, scholarship, or other financial assistance for educational expenses under section 3315.33, 3333.12, 3333.21, 3333.22, 3333.26, 3333.27, 5910.03, 5910.032, or 5919.34 of the Revised Code unless he has filed a statement of selective service status with the board of regents."
R.C. 3345.32(D) and (E) affect the same individuals affected by R.C. 3345.32(C) and condition receipt of certain financial assistance benefits upon a student's compliance with the federal selective service system registration requirements. Our analysis regarding the constitutionality of R.C. 3345.32(C) applies equally to R.C. 3345.32(D) and (E), and, therefore, we hold that R.C. 3345.32(D) and (E) do not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Ohio Constitution.
R.C. 3345.32(D) also affects some individuals which R.C. 3345.32(C) and (E) do not. See, e.g., R.C. 3351.05(B) and (C).
The final issue before us concerns the holding of the court of appeals that R.C. 3345.32(C) violates Section 32, Article II of the Ohio Constitution. Section 32, Article II prohibits the General Assembly from exercising any judicial power. The court of appeals determined that R.C. 3345.32(C) violates this prohibition by penalizing non-registrants without the benefit of a criminal proceeding. We do not agree that R.C. 3345.32(C) attempts to inflict punishment or impose a penalty by legislative fiat.
R.C. 3345.32(C) is meant to encourage compliance with federal law. The goals of R.C. 3345.32(C) are nonpunitive. Failure to comply with the selective service system registration requirements merely results in disqualification from the state-subsidized tuition rate. An Ohio resident who wishes to avoid the imposition of a tuition surcharge need only register with the selective service system. Thus, R.C. 3345.32(C) does not compel compliance with federal law and the consequence for failure to comply is limited to the imposition of a tuition rate reflecting the true value of the services provided by the institution of higher learning. Under these circumstances, we are unable to conclude that R.C. 3345.32(C) exacts a punishment or penalty. Rather, R.C. 3345.32(C) merely conditions qualification for a benefit upon compliance with federal law.
Accordingly, we hold that R.C. 3345.32(C) does not violate Section 32, Article II of the Ohio Constitution.
For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the judgment of the court of appeals in part, and we reverse it in part and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.
Judgment affirmed in part and reversed in part.
MOYER, C.J., SWEENEY, HOLMES, WRIGHT, H. BROWN and RESNICK, JJ., concur.