Plyler v. Doe
457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state may not deny free public education to undocumented school-age children, as such a denial violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment unless it is justified by a showing that it furthers a substantial state interest.
Facts:
- In May 1975, the Texas Legislature enacted a law, Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §21.031, revising its education laws to withhold state funds from local school districts for the education of children not 'legally admitted' into the United States.
- The statute also authorized local school districts to deny enrollment in public schools to these children or to charge them tuition.
- Following this law, the Tyler Independent School District adopted a policy in July 1977 requiring undocumented children to pay a 'full tuition fee' to enroll.
- A class of school-age children of Mexican origin, residing in Smith County, Texas, could not establish their legal admission to the U.S.
- As a result of the statute and school district policy, these children were excluded from attending public school free of charge.
- Evidence presented in the lower court indicated that the primary incentive for illegal entry into Texas was employment, not the availability of a free education.
- It was also established that many undocumented children would likely remain in the United States indefinitely, with some eventually becoming lawful residents or citizens.
Procedural Posture:
- A class action lawsuit was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of undocumented school-age children against the Tyler Independent School District, challenging Tex. Educ. Code Ann. §21.031.
- The District Court granted a permanent injunction, finding the Texas statute violated the Equal Protection Clause under rational basis review.
- In a separate, consolidated action, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas also found the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause, but applied strict scrutiny.
- The State of Texas and the school district appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
- The Fifth Circuit affirmed the district court's injunction in the Tyler case, holding that the statute was 'constitutionally infirm regardless of whether it was tested using the mere rational basis standard or some more stringent test.'
- The Fifth Circuit then summarily affirmed the Southern District's decision in the consolidated cases.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases and consolidated them.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a Texas statute that withholds state funds for the education of children who are not 'legally admitted' to the United States and authorizes school districts to charge them tuition violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Brennan
Yes, the Texas statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Undocumented aliens are 'persons within the jurisdiction' of a state and are therefore afforded the amendment's protection. While illegal alienage is not a suspect classification and public education is not a fundamental right, the absolute denial of education imposes a lifetime of hardship on a discrete class of children who are not accountable for their status. Therefore, the discriminatory classification must be justified by a showing that it furthers a substantial state interest. Texas's asserted interests—preserving limited fiscal resources, preventing an influx of illegal immigrants, and maintaining high-quality public education—are not substantial enough to justify the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates, which imposes significant costs on the nation and the children themselves.
Dissenting - Chief Justice Burger
No, the Texas statute does not violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Court is improperly assuming a policymaking role that belongs to the legislative branches. Since undocumented aliens are not a suspect class and education is not a fundamental right, the law should be reviewed under the rational basis test. The state has a legitimate and rational interest in preserving its finite public resources for individuals who are lawfully within its jurisdiction. It is not irrational for Texas to distinguish between legal residents and those present in the country illegally when allocating state-funded benefits like public education.
Concurring - Justice Marshall
Yes, the Texas statute is unconstitutional. While joining the majority, this opinion reiterates the belief expressed in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez that education is a fundamental interest. The absolute, class-based denial of public education is fundamentally incompatible with the Equal Protection Clause.
Concurring - Justice Blackmun
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional. While education is not a fundamental right under Rodriguez, the complete and absolute denial of education is unique because it inevitably creates a permanent and discrete underclass. This state action is fundamentally inconsistent with the core purpose of the Equal Protection Clause, much like denying the right to vote, because it relegates a group to a permanent second-class status. Therefore, the state must offer something more than a mere rational basis for its classification.
Concurring - Justice Powell
Yes, the statute is unconstitutional. The unique circumstances of this case require heightened review. The children are innocent victims of their parents' actions and should not be penalized with the deprivation of education, which creates a lifelong stigma. This is analogous to cases involving illegitimate children, where visiting condemnation on a child for the parents' conduct is unjust. The state's denial of education to these children bears no substantial relation to any substantial state interest.
Analysis:
This case is significant for establishing a unique, heightened standard of review under the Equal Protection Clause for a classification that, while not suspect, targets a politically powerless group of innocent children and imposes a severe deprivation upon them. The Court carved out a middle-ground, 'intermediate scrutiny' style analysis without formally naming it, requiring that the law serve a 'substantial state interest.' Plyler v. Doe affirmed that the Equal Protection Clause applies to all persons within a state's jurisdiction, regardless of immigration status, and prevented the creation of a permanent underclass by ensuring access to basic education for undocumented children. However, it carefully avoided overturning San Antonio v. Rodriguez by not declaring education a fundamental right.
