Plyler v. Doe

Facts of the Case

The statute in question was passed by the Texas legislature in 1975. It limited state education funding to children who could demonstrate legal residence in the United States. The state was required by law to withhold from local school districts funding for undocumented immigrants. Following two class action suits filed on behalf of-and decided in favor of-undocumented students, the state of Texas asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision of the Fifth Circuit (Doe v. Plyler, 1980).

The Court's Ruling

The Supreme Court focused first on how to examine the case. Texas unsuccessfully argued that undocumented immigrants were not “persons” legally within the jurisdiction of the state and therefore did not merit the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment. Texas also argued, this time successfully, that undocumented immigrants are not members of a suspect class, because they voluntarily enter into marginalized group status. Therefore, Texas maintained that the Court did not have to apply strict scrutiny.

However, as noted, the Court did apply a type of intermediate scrutiny, based in part on the classification set forth by a particular statute, as established in Craig v. Boren (1976) and also based in part on the critical importance of education in U.S. society and the consequences of a complete denial of school access. Plyler is thus notable for this rare decision to expand the reasons for using intermediate scrutiny.

Although education is not a fundamental right, as established by the Court in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973), Justice Brennan's majority opinion recognized that “neither is it [education] merely some governmental ‘benefit’ indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation” (Plyler, p. 221). The Court viewed the critical role of education to be its integrative functions, its transmission of values, and its ability to provide opportunities in the United States. Justice Powell's concurring opinion stressed that if undocumented students are denied the benefits of a free public education, this would effectively create “a subclass of illiterate persons many of whom will remain in the State, adding to the problems and costs of both State and National Governments attendant upon unemployment, welfare, and crime” (Plyler, p. 241, Brennan, J., concurring). The Court also called attention to the unjust penalties that § 21.031 places on children due to their parents' illegal presence in the United States, something the children had no direct control over. The Court deemed such punishment to be illogical.

...