Undocumented Students' Rights

On June 15, 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that states must admit undocumented elementary and secondary students to school on the same terms as citizens. The Court ruled in the case of Plyler v. Doe, striking down a Texas statute that had permitted school districts to exclude or charge tuition to undocumented students. Those practices were deemed unconstitutional under the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This entry describes undocumented students' rights to an education in the United States.

The following year, the Court distinguished resident undocumented students from those who reside in Mexico and cross the border only to attend school in a U.S. school district. Although the Court ruled in Plyler that school districts could not avoid educating undocumented students who live in their district by confounding residence with immigrant status, it did hold that a school district was only obligated to educate those who actually live in the district. Thus, legal residence in the United States and residence in the district are two distinct concepts that must be looked at differently by school officials. Residence in the district may be required, whereas legal residence in the country is not.

The Court reasoned as follows: “Today's undocumented residents are tomorrow's legal residents and citizens.” Accordingly, it makes no sense to deny children an education that will help them become better citizens later in life. The Court also noted that the situation carries with it mutual responsibilities. Schools have a responsibility to educate undocumented children, and students have a responsibility to attend and participate. The Court noted that undocumented children and youth should abide by mandatory attendance laws and stay in school until the legally required age in the state in which they reside.

There have been several unsuccessful challenges to Plyler. In 1994, California passed Proposition 187, which would have excluded undocumented students from school. It was immediately enjoined by both state and federal courts (see, e.g., LULAC. v. Wilson) and was not appealed. In 1996, as part of a stream of federal anti-immigrant legislation, the Gallegly Amendment (named after its author, Representative Elton Gallegly) was introduced and would have been used to attempt to overturn Plyler. It was ultimately defeated and did not become part of the law. In Arizona, in a ballot initiative, voters passed Proposition 300 in 2006, which limited the rights of undocumented persons to a number of public services. Because the proposition was a state measure, it does not have the same force as Plyler, which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Although Proposition 300 did not influence Plyler rights, it does affect the rights of adults to certain public services such as English language classes that are publicly supported.

In sum, since 1982, the right of undocumented elementary and secondary students who reside in the United States to free public schools has remained inviolate. This extends to the right to participate in federal and state categorical programs such as those under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and, later, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001.

...