# Plyler v. Doe

Part of a series on :
Chicanos and Mexican Americans :
Terms
Identity
Chola/o
La Raza
Pachuca
Pachuco
Pinta/o
Xicanx
Concepts
Anti-Mexican sentiment :
History
Early-American Period
Josefa Segovia
Las Gorras Blancas
Mexican–American War
Mutualista
San Elizario Salt War
Sonoratown
Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo
Pre-Chicano Movement
1917 Bath riots
Bisbee Deportation
Bloody Christmas
Bracero program
California agricultural strikes
Cantaloupe strike of 1928
Citrus Strike of 1936
La Matanza
Mexican Repatriation
Operation Wetback
Plan de San Diego
Porvenir Massacre
Sleepy Lagoon trial
Zoot Suit Riots
Chicano Movement
Aztlán
Black-brown unity
Brown Berets
Católicos por La Raza
Tulare labor camps rent strike
Delano grape strike
Centro Cultural
Chicanismo
Chicano Moratorium
Colegio César Chávez
CFMN
Conferencia de Mujeres
CRP
East L.A. walkouts
Hijas de Cuauhtémoc
Huelga schools
Land grant struggle
Las Adelitas de Aztlán
Los Siete de la Raza
Los Seis de Boulder
MANA
MAYO
MEChA
Occupation of Catalina Island
PCUN
Plan Espiritual de Aztlán
Plan de Santa Bárbara
Quinto Sol
Raza Unida Party
United Farm Workers
Post-Chicano Period
1985–1987 cannery strike
1992 Drywall Strike
2019 El Paso shooting
Abolish ICE
Arizona SB 1070
Castro 2020
Chicano Art Exhibit
DACA
Great American Boycott
IRCA
Farah strike
Justice for Janitors
Murder of Selena
Proposition 187
South Central Farm :
Culture
Language
Abrazos, no balazos
Caló
Chicano English
Chicano names
Órale
Food
New Mexican cuisine
Tex-Mex cuisine
Mexican-American cuisine
Music
Chicano rap
Chicano rock
Chicano soul
Tejano music
Symbols
Cal-Style VW
Homies
Lowrider
Lowrider bicycle
Mexican-American folklore
Pancho Claus
Zoot suit :
Literature
Literature
Chicana literature
Chicano literature
Chicano poetry
Autobiographical
Always Running
Living Up the Street
Who Would Have Thought It?
Novels
Bless Me, Ultima
Caballero
Desert Blood
From This Wicked Patch of Dust
Mexican WhiteBoy
The Dirty Girls Social Club
The House on Mango Street
The Rain God
The Revolt of the Cockroach People
So Far from God
Under the Feet of Jesus
...y no se lo tragó la tierra
Poetry and Short Stories
Emplumada
I Am Joaquin
Moment of Silence
Pensamiento Serpentino
The Moths :
Chicano studies
Fields
Chicana feminism
Chicanafuturism
Organizations
MAS Programs, Tucson
NACCS
UCLA Chicano Studies Research Center
Texts
Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza
Brown, Not White
The Church in the Barrio
This Bridge Called My Back
Theory
Barrioization
Coyolxauhqui imperative
Gringo justice
Nahui Ollin
Nepantla
New tribalism
Rasquachismo
Spiritual activism
Vergüenza
Youth control complex :
Visual art
Visual Art
Chicana art
Chicano art
Chicano cinema
Paño
Tortilla art
Art Collectives
Asco
Culture Clash
East Los Streetscapers
Los Four
Mujeres Muralistas
Teatro Campesino
Royal Chicano Air Force
Art organizations
Centro de Arte Público
Galería de la Raza
Mission Cultural Center for Latino Arts
Precita Eyes
Self Help Graphics & Art
Locations
Balmy Alley
Chicano Park
Estrada Courts
Great Wall of Los Angeles :
Law
Supreme Court cases
Botiller v. Dominguez
Hernandez v. Texas
San Antonio I.S.D. v. Rodriguez
Espinoza v. Farah Manufacturing Co.
U.S. v. Brignoni-Ponce
Plyler v. Doe
Medellín v. Texas
Flores-Figueroa v. U.S.
Leal Garcia v. Texas
Mendez v. Westminster
Bernal v. Fainter
Perez v. Brownell
DHS v. Regents of the Univ. of Cal.
Federal Court cases
Madrigal v. Quilligan :
Population
Population by City
Arizona (Tucson)
California (Los Angeles)
Illinois (Chicago)
Michigan (Detroit)
Nebraska (Omaha)
Texas
Dallas–Fort Worth
Houston
Multiethnic
Blaxicans
Californios
Nuevomexicanos
Tejanos
Indigenous Mexican Americans
Punjabi Mexican Americans :
Lists
Chicano films
Chicano poets
Chicano rappers
Mexican Americans
Writers
Bibliography :
United States portal
Category
Index :
vte :
Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education of undocumented immigrant children in the United States and an independent 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 a rational basis standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial government interest.
The application of Plyler v. Doe has been limited to K–12 schooling. Other 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 immigrant students eligibility for in-state tuition, scholarships, or enrollment at public colleges and universities.

## 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, the only non-white justice on the court.
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.