Plyler v. Doe
This article needs additional citations for verification. (December 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
|Plyler v. Doe|
|Argued December 1, 1981|
Decided June 15, 1982
|Full case name||James Plyler, Superintendent, Tyler Independent School District, et al. v. John Doe, et al.|
|Citations||457 U.S. 202 (more)|
|Prior||Judgment for plaintiffs, 458 F. Supp. 569 (E.D. Tex. 1978); affirmed, 628 F.2d 448 (5th Cir. 1980)|
|Subsequent||Rehearing denied, 458 U.S. 1131 (1982)|
|Denial of public education to students not legally admitted into the country violates the Equal Protection Clause. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed.|
|Majority||Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens|
|Dissent||Burger, joined by White, Rehnquist, O'Connor|
|U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.031|
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education to illegal immigrant children in the United States and a municipal school district's attempt to charge an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each student to compensate for lost state funding. The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their immigration status must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a "substantial" government interest.
The application of Plyler v. Doe has been limited to K-12 schooling. Other court cases and legislation such as Toll v. Moreno 441 U.S. 458 (1979) and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 have allowed some states to pass statutes that deny illegal alien students eligibility for in-state tuition, scholarships, or enrollment at public colleges and universities.
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-to-4 majority of the Supreme Court found that this policy was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as illegal alien 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 court 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"—namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. 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 refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on this basis, and it 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 court majority rejected this claim, finding instead 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." The dissenting opinion also rejected this claim, agreeing 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." The dissent simply concluded that the distinction the statute drew should survive an equal protection attack.
The dissent agreed in principle that it was unwise for illegal alien children to be denied a public education, but the four dissenting justices argued that the Texas law was not so objectionable as to be unconstitutional; that this issue ought to be dealt with through the legislative process; that "[t]he Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem"; and that the majority was overstepping its bounds by seeking "to do Congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction".
This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Children.
- "Court considers education for illegal immigrant children". The Telegraph (a newspaper in Nashua, New Hampshire). Associated Press. 1 December 1981.
- "Financial Aid and Scholarships for Undocumented Students". FinAid.org.
- "College Board wants more help for illegal immigrants". usatoday30.usatoday.com. Tysons Corner, VA: Gannett. July 22, 2009. ISSN 0734-7456. Archived from the original on April 15, 2014. Retrieved April 15, 2014.
- Russell, Alene (August 2007). "In-State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrants: States' Rights and Educational Opportunity" (pdf). American Association of State Colleges and Universities. p. 2.
- "The 25th Anniversary of Plyler v. Doe: Access to Education and Undocumented Children". University of California at Berkeley: Berkeley Law. 7 May 2007. Archived from the original on 15 July 2010.
- Oliveras, Michael A. (2005). "Plyler v. Doe, the Education of Undocumented Children, and the Polity". In Martin, David A.; Schuck, Peter H. (eds.). Immigration Stories. New York: Foundation Press. pp. 197–220. ISBN 1-62810-718-9.
- Soltero, Carlos R. (2006). "Plyler v. Doe (1982) and educating children of illegal aliens". Latinos and American Law: Landmark Supreme Court Cases. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. pp. 118–132. ISBN 0-292-71411-4.