Plyler v. Doe

This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources:  –  ·  ·  · scholar · JSTOR (December 2009) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Plyler v. Doe
Supreme Court of the United States
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) 102 S. Ct. 2382; 72 L. Ed. 2d 786; 1982 U.S. LEXIS 124; 50 U.S.L.W. 4650
Case history
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)
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
Majority	Brennan, joined by Marshall, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens
Concurrence	Marshall
Concurrence	Blackmun
Concurrence	Powell
Dissent	Burger, joined by White, Rehnquist, O'Connor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV; Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.031

Part of a series on
Chicanos and Mexican Americans
Terms Identity Chicana/o Mexican American 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 Cantaloupe strike of 1928 California agricultural strikes 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 Chicanismo Chicano Moratorium Colegio César Chávez CFMN Conferencia de Mujeres CRP East L.A. walkouts Hijas de Cuauhtémoc Huelga schools United Farm Workers Land grant struggle Las Adelitas de Aztlán Los Siete de la Raza Los Seis de Boulder MANA MAYO MEChA PCUN Plan Espiritual de Aztlán Plan de Santa Bárbara Quinto Sol Raza Unida Party Post-Chicano Period 1992 Drywall Strike 2019 El Paso shooting Abolish ICE Arizona SB 1070 Castro 2020 DACA Great American Boycott IRCA Justice for Janitors Murder of Selena Proposition 187 Xicanx
Culture Language Caló Chicano English Food New Mexican cuisine Tex-Mex cuisine Mexican-American cuisine Music Chicano rap Chicano rock Chicano soul Tejano music Symbols Centro Cultural de la Raza Lowrider Lowrider bicycle Mexican-American folklore 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
Chicana/o studies Fields Chicana feminism Chicanafuturism Chicano critical race theory 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 films Paño Tortilla art Art Collectives Asco Culture Clash East Los Streetscapers Los Four Mujeres Muralistas Teatro Campesino Royal Chicano Air Force Locations Balmy Alley Chicano Park Estrada Courts Galería de la Raza Great Wall of Los Angeles Precita Eyes Self Help Graphics & Art
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 Hispanos Californios Nuevomexicanos Tejanos Indigenous Mexican Americans Punjabi Mexican Americans
Lists Chicano poets Chicano rappers Mexican Americans Writers Bibliography
United States portal Category Index
v t

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 undocumented 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.^[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.

The application of Plyler v. Doe has been limited to K–12 schooling. Other cases and legislation such as 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 undocumented immigrant students eligibility for in-state tuition, scholarships, or enrollment at public colleges and universities.^[3][4][5]

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 undocumented 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 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",^[6] the fact that they had 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".^[7] The majority refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on that basis and so struck down the Texas law.

Texas officials had argued that undocumented immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and thus could not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court majority rejected that claim but 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." 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." The dissent simply concluded that the distinction the statute drew should survive an equal protection attack.

Dissent[]

The dissent agreed in principle that it was unwise for undocumented immigrant 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 the 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.

See also[]

• Gallegly amendment
• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 457

References[]

Further reading[]

• 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.

External links[]

• Interview with Attorney Larry Daves about his work on Plyer v. Doe Texas After Violence Project and Human Rights Documentation Initiative
• Text of Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982) is available from: Cornell  Google Scholar  Justia  Library of Congress  Oyez (oral argument audio)