For over 40 years, U.S. law has dictated that undocumented children are entitled to a free public education under the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Since the landmark ruling by the Supreme Court that created this legal principle, Plyler v. Doe, there have been numerous attempts at the state and federal levels to circumvent it to deny education to undocumented children.

While previous attempts have been unsuccessful, there has been a resurgence in such efforts accompanied by calls for the Supreme Court to overturn Plyler. Accordingly, CSBA has taken steps to understand and project the potential consequences for local educational agencies in California were Plyler to be overturned.

“While there is nothing concrete to do at this point in time in preparation for any action related to this case, an awareness of challenges to this Supreme Court precedent and legislative trends can be helpful for board members and school officials as they make decisions and plan for the future,” explained Dana Scott, CSBA associate general counsel. “In Plyler, the Supreme Court of the United States held that state statutes withholding funding from schools could not be justified on grounds that undocumented children imposed special burdens on a state’s ability to provide high-quality public education in terms of educational costs and needs, or that the unlawful presence of undocumented children rendered them somehow less likely than other children to put their education to productive social or political use within state.”

Practically speaking, she said the financial impact could be extreme for LEAs in California. “The impact of potentially losing funding for this group of students would be difficult to plan for and significant in its reach,” Scott explained. “School communities may experience loss of students and families who may no longer be permitted to attend public school, leading to negative effects on student well-being and school cohesion. There could also be a new level of administrative requirements for LEAs in the enrollment process that LEAs have not had to consider before. Each of these impacts, and many others, are complicated by the unknown of how California, as a state, would respond to changes in federal law that may result if Plyler is overturned.”

The latest publication from CSBA, available on the association’s Immigration Resources webpage and at csba.pub/plyler-2026, details requirements under the law as it stands now and what overturning Plyler would mean for LEAs.

However, Scott noted that altering who is entitled to receive educational benefits could create long-term obstacles beyond LEAs’ budgeting.

“Beyond the immediate impact to schools, overturning Plyler could have sweeping ramifications for our communities. As the court notes, ’education prepares individuals to be self-reliant and self-sufficient participants in society.’ Regardless of whether a person’s immigration status, their ability to contribute to society benefits the entire community,” she said.

As with most things in the law, the impacts of overturning Plyler and the likely resulting legislative changes at the state and federal levels will take time to come to fruition, Scott explained. “The facts of the case and the specific language of the Supreme Court in any overruling of Plyler will be of critical importance to understanding the potential impacts. Similarly, the response of California leaders and lawmakers will be important to keep track of in order to understand the legal requirements at the state level and how those requirements interact with federal law,” she said.