Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet
icon backReturn to Entries

Martinez v. Bynum

In Martinez v. Bynum (1983), the Supreme Court held that a bona fide residence requirement was a permissible precondition before even a U.S. citizen could demand a state's services such as public education. The Court thus ruled that a child who was a citizen but who did not meet the requirements of Texas's bona fide residence was not entitled to a free public education.

Facts of the Case

Roberto Morales, who was born in McAllen, Texas, was a citizen of the United States. After his birth, Roberto and his parents, Mexican citizens, returned to Mexico, where he lived until he was eight years old. When Roberto turned eight, his mother and father sent him to live with his sister, who had established legal residency in McAllen, Texas. The family's goal was that Roberto would re-enter the United States and live with his sister in order to attend American public schools and to learn English.

Even though Roberto was a citizen, local school board officials denied Roberto a tuition-free education pursuant to a state statute that denied such an education to children who lived apart from their parents or guardians and who were present in districts merely to obtain an education. Roberto's sister filed a lawsuit claiming this statute was unconstitutional, as it violated provisions of the Equal Protection Clause, the Due Process Clause, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause.

The lower courts ruled in favor of the school board on the ground that Texas had a substantial interest in assuring that services intended for the state's residents were provided only to residents.

The Court's Ruling

The sister appealed to the Supreme Court, which deemed it necessary to define two major components of the Texas statute. The first of these components was the issue of whether Roberto lived apart from a parent or guardian. Roberto's sister claimed that her “custody” of Roberto for five years was sufficient to meet the requirement of parent or guardian. However, the Court determined that the wording of the statute deliberately intended that in order to establish residency, a child was required to live with his or her natural parents or with guardians; guardians were defined as persons appointed by the courts or those having lawful control over children with the responsibility to care for their rights and needs. The Court reasoned that while the sister had cared for her brother, her custody did not rise to the level of parenthood or guardianship.

In reviewing the second component of the statute, concerning the need to be present in a district to obtain an education, the Supreme Court pointed out that history revealed that board officials had been liberal in allowing students to attend school without benefit of a parent or guardian if they resided in the district for any reason other than to obtain an education. The Court acknowledged that while the board had, on occasion, granted tuition-free admission to children who were in the district without benefit of a parent or guardian, the state of Texas (and the McAllen School District) was within its rights to deny a tuition-free education to students who lived in the school district solely to receive a free American education.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Read next

More like this

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

close

Have you created a personal profile? Login or create a profile so that you can save clips, playlists and searches

close
close
close Signed In to profile You are signed in as:
close
Logged in Institution Institution