Plyler v. Doe

Last updated
Plyler v. Doe
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 1, 1981
Decided June 15, 1982
Full case nameJames Plyler, Superintendent, Tyler Independent School District, et al. v. John Doe, et al.
Citations457 U.S. 202 ( more )
102 S. Ct. 2382; 72 L. Ed. 2d 786; 1982 U.S. LEXIS 124; 50 U.S.L.W. 4650
Case history
PriorJudgment for plaintiffs, 458 F. Supp. 569 (E.D. Tex. 1978); affirmed, 628 F.2d 448 (5th Cir. 1980)
SubsequentRehearing denied, 458 U.S. 1131(1982)
Holding
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.
Court membership
Chief Justice
Warren E. Burger
Associate Justices
William J. Brennan Jr.  · Byron White
Thurgood Marshall  · Harry Blackmun
Lewis F. Powell Jr.  · William Rehnquist
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Case opinions
MajorityBrennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens
ConcurrenceMarshall
ConcurrenceBlackmun
ConcurrencePowell
DissentBurger, joined by White, Rehnquist, O'Connor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.031

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. [1] 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.

Contents

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 [2] 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. [3] [4] [5]

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). [6] The 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." [7]

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. [6]

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". [8] 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". [9] 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". [6]

In short, the most prominent takeaways from this case were that the Court reasoned that unauthorized immigrants and their children, although not technically 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. [6]

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 to the fact that he believed 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." [10]

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." [8]

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. [11] "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." [6]

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". [11] 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". [12] 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. [13]

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. [14]

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. [15] [16] [17]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution</span> 1868 amendment addressing citizenship rights and civil and political liberties

The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution was adopted on July 9, 1868, as one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Usually considered one of the most consequential amendments, it addresses citizenship rights and equal protection under the law and was proposed in response to issues related to former slaves following the American Civil War. The amendment was bitterly contested, particularly by the states of the defeated Confederacy, which were forced to ratify it in order to regain representation in Congress. The amendment, particularly its first section, is one of the most litigated parts of the Constitution, forming the basis for landmark Supreme Court decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954) regarding racial segregation, Roe v. Wade (1973) regarding abortion, Bush v. Gore (2000) regarding the 2000 presidential election, and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) regarding same-sex marriage. The amendment limits the actions of all state and local officials, and also those acting on behalf of such officials.

Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States generally protected a right to have an abortion. The decision struck down many abortion laws, and caused an ongoing abortion debate in the United States about whether, or to what extent, abortion should be legal, who should decide the legality of abortion, and what the role of moral and religious views in the political sphere should be. The decision also shaped debate concerning which methods the Supreme Court should use in constitutional adjudication.

Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that the Constitution of the United States protects the liberty of married couples to buy and use contraceptives without government restriction. The case involved a Connecticut "Comstock law" that prohibited any person from using "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception". The court held that the statute was unconstitutional, and that its effect was "to deny disadvantaged citizens ... access to medical assistance and up-to-date information in respect to proper methods of birth control." By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law on the grounds that it violated the "right to marital privacy", establishing the basis for the right to privacy with respect to intimate practices. This and other cases view the right to privacy as "protected from governmental intrusion".

Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), was a landmark case of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning affirmative action in student admissions. The Court held that a student admissions process that favors "underrepresented minority groups" did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause so long as it took into account other factors evaluated on an individual basis for every applicant. The decision largely upheld the Court's decision in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978), which allowed race to be a consideration in admissions policy but held racial quotas to be unconstitutional. In Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), a separate case decided on the same day as Grutter, the Court struck down a points-based admissions system that awarded an automatic bonus to the admissions scores of minority applicants.

Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (2003), is a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in which the Court ruled that most sanctions of criminal punishment for consensual, adult non-procreative sexual activity are unconstitutional. The Court reaffirmed the concept of a "right to privacy" that earlier cases had found the U.S. Constitution provides, even though it is not explicitly enumerated. It based its ruling on the notions of personal autonomy to define one's own relationships and of American traditions of non-interference with private sexual decisions between consenting adults.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Lewis F. Powell Jr.</span> US Supreme Court justice from 1972 to 1987

Lewis Franklin Powell Jr. was an American lawyer and jurist who served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States from 1972 to 1987.

A Due Process Clause is found in both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, which prohibit the deprivation of "life, liberty, or property" by the federal and state governments, respectively, without due process of law.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which held that "a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China", automatically became a U.S. citizen at birth. This decision established an important precedent in its interpretation of the Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.

Anchor baby is a term used to refer to a child born to non-citizen parents in a country that has birthright citizenship which will therefore help the parents and other family members gain legal residency. In the U.S., the term is generally used as a derogatory reference to the supposed role of the child, who automatically qualifies as an American citizen under jus soli and the rights guaranteed in the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The term is also often used in the context of the debate over illegal immigration to the United States. A similar term, "passport baby", has been used in Canada for children born through so-called "maternity" or "birth tourism".

Lum v. Rice, 275 U.S. 78 (1927), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the exclusion on account of race of a child of Chinese ancestry from a public school did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The decision effectively approved the exclusion of any minority children from schools reserved for whites.

United States v. Virginia, 518 U.S. 515 (1996), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down the long-standing male-only admission policy of the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) in a 7–1 decision. Justice Clarence Thomas, whose son was enrolled at the university at the time, recused himself.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) is a national non-profit civil rights organization formed in 1968 by Jack Greenberg to protect the rights of Latinos in the United States. Founded in San Antonio, Texas, it is currently headquartered in Los Angeles, California and maintains regional offices in Sacramento, San Antonio, Chicago, and Washington, D.C.

The proposed Citizenship Reform Act of 2005 was a bill which, if enacted into law, would have amended the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit automatic citizenship at birth to apply only to a child born in the United States who: (1) was born in wedlock to parents either of whom was then a U.S. citizen or national or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who maintained such residence; or (2) was born out of wedlock to a mother who was then a U.S. citizen or national or an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence who maintained such residence. The bill would have accomplished this objective by defining children not falling into the above categories as not being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States, and thus not entitled to automatic citizenship via the Fourteenth Amendment which section 1 reads "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

United States citizenship can be acquired by birthright in two situations: by virtue of the person's birth within United States territory or because one or both of their parents is a US citizen. Birthright citizenship contrasts with citizenship acquired in other ways, for example by naturalization.

The Gallegly amendment was introduced by Representative Elton Gallegly to the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act in 1996. Its purpose was to allow states to deny public education or charge tuition to aliens not lawfully present in the United States, despite the Supreme Court decision Plyler v. Doe barring these actions. It passed the United States House of Representatives by a margin of 257-163 but was removed from the final bill after prolonged opposition from President Clinton and several Republican senators.

Birthright generation is a term used by immigrant advocates to identify US-born citizens, who are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. It grants American citizenship to all babies born on American soil even if the child is born to one or both undocumented parents. Birthright citizenship may be also conferred either by jus soli or jus sanguinis. Under American law, any person born within the US, including the territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands and subject to its jurisdiction is automatically granted US citizenship.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals</span> Obama administration immigration policy

Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, colloquially referred to as DACA, is a United States immigration policy that allows some individuals with unlawful presence in the United States after being brought to the country as children to receive a renewable two-year period of deferred action from deportation and become eligible for an employment authorization document in the U.S. To be eligible for the program, recipients cannot have felonies or serious misdemeanors on their records. Unlike the proposed DREAM Act, DACA does not provide a path to citizenship for recipients. The policy, an executive branch memorandum, was announced by President Barack Obama on June 15, 2012. This followed a campaign by immigrants, advocates and supporters which employed a range of tactics. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) began accepting applications for the program on August 15, 2012.

Undocumented youth in the United States are young people living in the United States without U.S. citizenship or other legal immigration status. An estimated 1.1 million undocumented minors resided in the U.S. as of 2010, making up 16% of the undocumented population of 11 million. Undocumented students face unique legal uncertainties and limitations within the United States educational system. They are sometimes called the 1.5 generation, as they have spent a majority of their lives in the United States.

Federal policy oversees and regulates immigration to the United States and citizenship of the United States. The United States Congress has authority over immigration policy in the United States, and it delegates enforcement to the Department of Homeland Security. Historically, the United States went through a period of loose immigration policy in the early-19th century followed by a period of strict immigration policy in the late-19th and early-20th centuries. Policy areas related to the immigration process include visa policy, asylum policy, and naturalization policy. Policy areas related to illegal immigration include deferral policy and removal policy.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">SCR 1044</span> Arizona Immigration Legislation

The Senate Concurrent Resolution 1044 or Arizona In-Sate Tuition for Non-Citizen Resident Measure is a legislatively referred state statute on the ballot for the November 8, 2022 election in Arizona. SCR 1044 would repeal provisions of Proposition 300 passed in 2006. SCR 1044 would give voters the opportunity to allow all students, including Arizonan Dreamers, to receive in-state college tuition when a student (a) attended a school in Arizona for a minimum of two years and (b) graduated from a public school, private school, or homeschool in Arizona.

References

  1. ↑ "Court considers education for illegal immigrant children". The Telegraph (a newspaper in Nashua, New Hampshire). Associated Press. 1 December 1981.
  2. ↑ "Financial Aid and Scholarships for Undocumented Students". FinAid.org. 5 March 2020.
  3. ↑ "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.
  4. ↑ 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.
  5. ↑ "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.
  6. 1 2 3 4 5 "Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)". Justia Law. Retrieved 2022-02-04.
  7. ↑ "Public Education for Immigrant Students: Understanding Plyler v. Doe". American Immigration Council. 2012-06-15. Retrieved 2022-02-04.
  8. 1 2 "Plyler v. Doe". FindLaw. United States Supreme Court. Retrieved 24 July 2019.
  9. ↑ "Plyler v. Doe". FindLaw. United States Supreme Court. Retrieved 24 July 2019.
  10. ↑ "Access to Education - Rule of Law". United States Courts. Retrieved 2022-02-05.
  11. 1 2 "Access to Education - Rule of Law". United States Courts. Retrieved 2022-02-05.
  12. ↑ Monroe Leigh (January 1983). "Plyler v. Doe. 102 S.Ct. 2382". The American Journal of International Law. 77 (1): 151–153. doi:10.2307/2201208. JSTOR   2201208. S2CID   147622982.
  13. ↑ "Plyler v. Doe". Ballotpedia. Retrieved 2022-02-05.
  14. ↑ Stern, Seth; Wermiel, Stephen (4 October 2010). Justice Brennan. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. ISBN   9780547523897.
  15. ↑ McKinley, Edward (May 5, 2022). "Gov. Abbott wants to ban unauthorized immigrants from Texas schools". Houston Chronicle . Retrieved May 5, 2022.
  16. ↑ Goodman, J. David (May 5, 2022). "Texas Governor Ready to Challenge Schooling of Migrant Children". The New York Times . Retrieved May 15, 2022.
  17. ↑ Griswold, Niki (May 4, 2022). "Abbott says Texas could 'resurrect' SCOTUS case requiring states to educate all kids". Austin American-Statesman . Retrieved May 15, 2022.

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.