legal insights
n the 1982 case Plyler v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court held that under the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, states must provide a free public education to undocumented immigrant students. The Equal Protection Clause provides that no state can deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Since Plyler, there have been legislative efforts to undermine the decision, including the passage of laws that were eventually struck down by the courts in states such as California and Alabama.
The decision began by finding that, contrary to Texas’ argument, the Equal Protection Clause does apply to undocumented immigrant students in this circumstance. According to the Court, even students present in the country unlawfully, are “surely a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term.” Furthermore, the fact that the individuals entered the U.S. in an unlawful manner does not negate the fact that they are in the state’s jurisdiction and therefore may reap the benefits of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. With the constitutional basis established, the decision moved on to determining the appropriate standard of review for considering the Texas laws in question.
The Court explained that the case did not involve a fundamental right or a protected class, which would lead to the most stringent analysis available. Specifically, immigration status is not an immutable characteristic, which is required to establish a protected class, because the individuals had a choice in coming to the U.S. unlawfully. Additionally, the Court explained that education is not guaranteed by the Constitution in the way other rights are and therefore not a fundamental right. However, the Court acknowledged that education is not “merely some governmental ‘benefit’ indistinguishable from other forms of social welfare legislation.” The Court stated that education is unique and of great importance, and therefore when applying the “rational basis test,” the lowest or easiest constitutional standard to satisfy, the Court could “appropriately take into account its costs to the Nation and innocent children who are [the law’s] victims,” while analyzing these Equal Protection Clause questions. With all this established, the Court found that in order for the law to be permissible, Texas had to show that it furthered “some substantial goal of the state.”
After considering Texas’ arguments, the Court found that there was no substantial goal furthered by the laws. The undocumented status of the students alone did not create the needed rational basis, nor did the Texas law further a federal immigration policy that would permit the equal protection analysis to weigh in favor of the state. Finally, the Court determined that the state interest in preserving resources for lawful residents did not satisfy the rational basis test because there was nothing in the record to support the conclusion that excluding undocumented immigrant students would improve the quality of education provided in the state. The Court concluded by summarizing, “If the State is to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here.” This majority opinion was agreed upon by five of the nine justices, with four justices disagreeing.
In recent years there has been an uptick of interest and efforts related to this topic by state legislatures and public officials in states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Indiana, Idaho, Tennessee and New Jersey. This may be due to the pattern found in recent decisions from the Supreme Court that some see as suggesting a possibility of overturning Plyler as precedent. This, in combination with advocacy efforts such as a report from the Heritage Foundation — a conservative think tank that encourages “every state” to “challenge Plyler v. Doe” in order to overturn it so states can prevent undocumented immigrants from receiving public benefits — may be fueling these new efforts.
So far, none of these efforts have resulted in new laws that contradict Plyler’s holding. If a state is ultimately successful in passing such a law, a legal challenge will almost certainly result, and the outcome of that challenge will take time to play out. In the meantime, it is possible that federal legislative or executive action may be pursued. The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government recently conducted a hearing on the impacts of Plyler and the U.S. Department of Education issued an interpretive rule in July 2025 stating that Plyler requires provision of basic education services to children, not adults. Both actions suggest a change in course to previous federal norms around the Plyler decision.
Despite these various efforts, no legal change has resulted. The impacts of such a change in the law would be significant in many ways, including financially for local educational agencies that rely on per-student funding, for example. Other economic impacts would likely result as well due to potential changes in workforce as a result of decreased educational opportunities, possible increases in child poverty rates, and changes to public health factors. CSBA will continue to monitor developments in these changes to laws and any resulting lawsuits that may reach the U.S. Supreme Court and lead to a potential overturning of Plyler.