MATTER OF ALIESSA v. Novello

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that states “are free to discriminate in either direction — producing not uniformity, but potentially wide variation based on localized or idiosyncratic concepts of largesse, economics and politics”
• finding that the state’s denial of Medicaid benefits through adoption of the five-year ban was not enacted pursuant to a uniform federal rule and could not survive, strict judicial scrutiny
• rejecting that the PRWORA creates uniformity because “the States are free to discriminate in either direction — producing not uniformity, but potentially wide variation based on localized or idiosyncratic concepts of largesse, economics and politics”
• applying strict scrutiny to New York law excluding non-emergency Medicaid coverage for certain aliens, notwithstanding the law’s incorporation of the Welfare Reform Act’s eligibility requirements
• “We conclude that [the statute] is subject to — and cannot pass — strict scrutiny, notwithstanding [PRWORA’s] authorization”
• “If the rule were uniform, each State would carry out the same policy under the mandate of Congress—the only body with authority to set immigration policy”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).