Deep Dive: Texas Governor Abbott and the Supreme Court Case of Plyler v. Doe

Last week, Texas Governor Greg Abbott stated that the Supreme Court’s 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe is a decision worth challenging on the grounds that it allegedly violates the US Constitution.

But what was Plyler v. Doe about in the first place?

1. The Texas Law and School Board Policy

2. The Legal Challenge and Issue

3. The Supreme Court's Decision

4. What now?

---

1. The Texas Law and School Board Policy

In 1975, Texas passed a law that:

• allowed local school districts to deny enrollment in public schools to any foreign-born children who were not “legally admitted” to the United States; and
  

• allowed the state to withhold from local school districts funds for educating children who were not “legally admitted.”

On the basis of that law, in 1977 the Tyler Independent School District adopted a policy that required foreign-born students to pay tuition if they were not “legally admitted.”

2. The Legal Challenge and Issue

A class action was then filed in 1977 on behalf of certain school-aged children who were originally from Mexico but residing in Texas and who could not establish that they had been “legally admitted” to the US. Their lawsuit sought permanent injunctive relief, requesting that the court prevent the Tyler Independent School District and the State of Texas from denying them a free public education.

At the heart of the issue was whether the law violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The district (trial level) court concluded that it did, and further that the law was preempted by federal immigration law. The federal appellate court upheld the ruling on constitutional grounds, and the case was then appealed to the Supreme Court.

3. The Supreme Court's Decision

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the law violated the 14th Amendment, which provides that “No State shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” As a result, if a state provides fee public education to U.S. Citizens and lawfully present foreign-born children, they cannot deny the same education to undocumented children without showing that it somehow furthers a “substantial state interest.”

In coming to this conclusion, the majority reasoned that “public education has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society” and that “deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological wellbeing of the individual, and poses an obstacle to individual achievement.” Plyler, 457 U.S. at 203.

“By denying these children a basic education, we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation.”

Plyler, 457 U.S. at 223.

In Texas’ case, the Supreme Court found that the school district had no rational basis to deny children a public education on account of their immigration status, especially given the harm that these children could suffer.

4. What now?

Governor Abbott’s challenge to this case is premised on his belief that if the states are required to provide this education, then it should be the federal government (and not the states) who pay for it. Whether or not he actually takes any steps to challenge this case remains to be seen.

While the Plyler decision relates to children who were not "legally admitted," there is sure to be political noise surrounding the education of non-US Citizen children as a whole.

If so, keep in mind the following points:

• children in the US on visitor visas are prohibited from attending any school in the US as a condition of that visa and status;
  

• children on a student visa cannot attend a public elementary school at all (they must attend a private school), and
  

• children on a student visa cannot attend a public secondary school unless attendance is for a period not exceeding 12 months and they have reimbursed the school board the full, unsubsidized per capita cost of education.

If you would like to schedule a free consultation with our office, click here to view our calendar.

Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only, and shall not be considered legal advice, or be used as a substitute for competent counsel. No attorney-client relationship exists without a signed agreement.