Plyler v. Doe

History

In 1975 Texas "prohibited the use of state funds for the education of children who had not been legally admitted to the U.S" (457 U.S.202). The state policy also allowed schools to deny enrollment of any "unauthorized" child seeking to attend the school. Then in 1977, the Tyler Independent School District instituted a policy mandating that foreign-born students who were not considered to be legally admitted to the United States were required to pay tuition. "Under the school district's policy, children were considered "legally admitted" if (1) they possessed documentation showing that they were legally present in the United States, or (2) federal immigration authorities confirmed they were in the process of securing such documentation."

Summary

Revisions to education laws in Texas in 1975 withheld state funds for educating children who had not been legally admitted to the United States and authorized local school districts to deny enrollment to such students. A 5–4 majority of the Supreme Court found the policy to violate the Fourteenth Amendment, as illegal immigrant children are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and therefore had protection from discrimination unless a substantial state interest could be shown to justify it.

The majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control". The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime". The majority did not find that any substantial state interest would be advanced by discrimination on that basis and so struck down the Texas law.

Texas officials had argued that illegal aliens were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and thus could not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority rejected that claim and found that "no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment 'jurisdiction' can be drawn between resident immigrants whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident immigrants whose entry was unlawful".

In short, the most prominent takeaways from this case were that the Court reasoned that unauthorized immigrants and their children, although not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.

Concurring opinions

Three of the four justices who joined the majority opinion written by Justice Brennan wrote their own concurring opinions.

Justice Marshall called specific attention his belief that the interest of an individual to pursue an education is fundamental, and that "this belief is amply supported by the unique status accorded public education by our society, and by the close relationship between education and some of our most basic constitutional values."

Justice Blackmun noted that "when a state provides an education to some and denies it to others, it immediately and inevitably creates class distinctions of a type fundamentally inconsistent with" the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause because "an uneducated child is denied even the opportunity to achieve." When those children are members of an identifiable class, the state has created a separable and identifiable underclass."

Justice Powell noted the uniqueness of this particular case. He highlighted that as long as this law stands a group of children is being denied access to education, not due to actions of their own, but because of a violation of the law by their parents. "A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass of future citizens and residents cannot be reconciled with one of the fundamental purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment."

Dissenting opinions

Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justices White, Rehnquist, and O'Connor, wrote a dissenting opinion.

The four dissenting justices all agreed with the majority that it would be wrong to "tolerate creation of a segment of society made up of illiterate persons". The dissenting opinion also rejected that claim and agreed with the Court that "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to immigrants who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically 'within the jurisdiction' of a state". However, in his dissent, Chief Justice Burger asserted that issues of whether or not to admit children of illegal immigrants should be delegated to Congress and not the judiciary, as it is more a policy issue than a constitutional one. Burger further argued that the "Equal Protection Clause does not mandate identical treatment of different categories of persons" and that Texas did in fact have a legitimate reason to seek to distinguish between individuals who were residing in the country legally versus illegally.

William Rehnquist was so disgusted by the decision that he referred to illegal immigrant children as "wetbacks" in conference, which angered Thurgood Marshall.

This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Children.

Aftermath

In May 2022 Texas Governor Greg Abbott expressed interest in attempting to overturn the case, following the leak of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The draft opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, would overturn Roe v. Wade on the basis that abortion rights were not explicitly protected in the Constitution and thus would allow states to determine whether to protect or restrict those rights. Abbott stated the same would apply to the rights to education for immigrants, which is only established by Plyler and not a constitutional right.

In 2025, legislation was introduced in the Tennessee General Assembly that seeks to challenge the case. Supporters of the legislation stated that they believed that the case was wrongly decided and that the current Supreme Court would be likely to revisit and overturn the case.

As of 2012, the issue in this case had not been re-litigated by the Supreme Court, but it was frequently cited in litigation before lower courts.

References

References

1. . (1 December 1981). ["Court considers education for illegal immigrant children"](https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2209&dat=19811201&id=i6ErAAAAIBAJ&sjid=gfwFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4509,116260). *The Telegraph (a newspaper in Nashua, New Hampshire)*.
2. (5 March 2020). "Financial Aid and Scholarships for Undocumented Students". FinAid.org.
3. . (July 22, 2009). ["College Board wants more help for illegal immigrants"](http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2009-04-21-college-board-immigrants_N.htm). *[[Gannett Company*.
4. (August 2007). "In-State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrants: States' Rights and Educational Opportunity". American Association of State Colleges and Universities.
5. (7 May 2007). "The 25th Anniversary of Plyler v. Doe: Access to Education and Undocumented Children". University of California at Berkeley: Berkeley Law.
6. "Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)".
7. (2012-06-15). "Public Education for Immigrant Students: Understanding Plyler v. Doe".
8. "Plyler v. Doe". United States Supreme Court.
9. "Access to Education - Rule of Law".
10. Monroe Leigh. (January 1983). "Plyler v. Doe. 102 S.Ct. 2382". The American Journal of International Law.
11. "Plyler v. Doe".
12. (4 October 2010). "Justice Brennan". Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
13. McKinley, Edward. (May 5, 2022). "Gov. Abbott wants to ban unauthorized immigrants from Texas schools". [[Houston Chronicle]].
14. (May 5, 2022). "Texas Governor Ready to Challenge Schooling of Migrant Children". [[The New York Times]].
15. (May 4, 2022). "Abbott says Texas could 'resurrect' SCOTUS case requiring states to educate all kids". [[Austin American-Statesman]].
16. Bacallao, Marianna. (March 31, 2025). "Tennessee GOP bill aims to end federal right to education for undocumented students". NPR.
17. Wadhwani, Anita. (March 27, 2025). "GOP bill allowing Tennessee schools to deny an education to immigrant children advances". Tennessee Lookout.
18. (2012). "No Undocumented Child Left Behind Plyler v. Doe and the Education of Undocumented Schoolchildren". New York University Press.