Law
Law
16
16
0
On June 15, 1982, the United States Supreme Court ruled all children, regardless of citizenship, are entitled to a public education. From the article:
"Access to Education - Rule of Law
Plyler v. Doe
Brown v. Board of Education
Plyler v. Doe
Summary of a Fourteenth Amendment Landmark case:
Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982)(link is external)
Facts
In 1975, the Texas Legislature revised its education laws to deny enrollment in their public schools to and withhold any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" to the country.
A class action was filed on behalf of certain school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Texas who could not establish that they had been legally admitted into the United States. The class filed a motion for permanent injunctive relief, asking the district court to prevent defendants from denying a free public education to members of the class.
In deciding the motion, the district court found that neither the revised law nor its implementation had "either the purpose or effect of keeping illegal aliens out of the State of Texas." The district court also found that the increase in enrollment in Texas public schools was primarily attributable to the admission of children who were legal residents. Finally, the district court found that while barring undocumented children would save money, it would not necessarily improve the quality of the education. The court then concluded that illegal aliens were entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Texas legislation violated it.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Issue
Whether denying undocumented children of illegal immigrants the right to attend public school constitutes discrimination based on alienage that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Ruling
Yes.
Reasoning
(Brennan, J.) By a 5–4 vote, the Court concluded that the Texas legislation violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court explained that "education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society" and "provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all." Further, while persuasive arguments support the view that a state may withhold benefits from people whose presence within the country is a result of unlawful conduct, the children of such illegal entrants "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status," and "legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice."
While the state has a legitimate interest in protecting itself from an influx of illegal immigrants, there was no evidence to suggest that any immigrants came to the country to avail themselves of a free education. Similarly, while the state has an interest in removing burdens on the state's ability to provide high-quality public education, there was no evidence that the exclusion of undocumented children was likely to improve the overall quality of education in Texas.
Accordingly, the majority affirmed the lower court's ruling.
Concurrence
(Marshall, J.) Justice Marshall emphasized that he believed an individual's interest in education is fundamental and that this belief "is amply supported by the unique status accorded public education by our society, and by the close relationship between education and some of our most basic constitutional values."
(Blackmun, J.) Justice Blackmun noted that "when a state provides an education to some and denies it to others, it immediately and inevitably creates class distinctions of a type fundamentally inconsistent with" the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause because "an uneducated child is denied even the opportunity to achieve." When those children are members of an identifiable class, the state has created a separable and identifiable underclass.
(Powell, J.) Justice Powell emphasized the unique character of the case. He noted that under the Texas law, a group of children is deprived of the opportunity for education because of a violation of law by their parents. "A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass of future citizens and residents cannot be reconciled with one of the fundamental purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Dissent
(Burger, C.J.) The dissent asserted that any issues concerning whether or not to admit children of undocumented immigrants into public schools should be dealt with by the legislature as opposed to the judiciary. The dissenting Justices agreed that "it would be folly—and wrong—to tolerate creation of a segment of society made up of illiterate persons." However, they concluded that such a decision should be made by the political branches because it is a policy issue inappropriate for the Court to undertake."
"Access to Education - Rule of Law
Plyler v. Doe
Brown v. Board of Education
Plyler v. Doe
Summary of a Fourteenth Amendment Landmark case:
Plyler v. Doe 457 U.S. 202 (1982)(link is external)
Facts
In 1975, the Texas Legislature revised its education laws to deny enrollment in their public schools to and withhold any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" to the country.
A class action was filed on behalf of certain school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Texas who could not establish that they had been legally admitted into the United States. The class filed a motion for permanent injunctive relief, asking the district court to prevent defendants from denying a free public education to members of the class.
In deciding the motion, the district court found that neither the revised law nor its implementation had "either the purpose or effect of keeping illegal aliens out of the State of Texas." The district court also found that the increase in enrollment in Texas public schools was primarily attributable to the admission of children who were legal residents. Finally, the district court found that while barring undocumented children would save money, it would not necessarily improve the quality of the education. The court then concluded that illegal aliens were entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the Texas legislation violated it.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
Issue
Whether denying undocumented children of illegal immigrants the right to attend public school constitutes discrimination based on alienage that violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?
Ruling
Yes.
Reasoning
(Brennan, J.) By a 5–4 vote, the Court concluded that the Texas legislation violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court explained that "education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society" and "provides the basic tools by which individuals might lead economically productive lives to the benefit of us all." Further, while persuasive arguments support the view that a state may withhold benefits from people whose presence within the country is a result of unlawful conduct, the children of such illegal entrants "can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status," and "legislation directing the onus of a parent's misconduct against his children does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice."
While the state has a legitimate interest in protecting itself from an influx of illegal immigrants, there was no evidence to suggest that any immigrants came to the country to avail themselves of a free education. Similarly, while the state has an interest in removing burdens on the state's ability to provide high-quality public education, there was no evidence that the exclusion of undocumented children was likely to improve the overall quality of education in Texas.
Accordingly, the majority affirmed the lower court's ruling.
Concurrence
(Marshall, J.) Justice Marshall emphasized that he believed an individual's interest in education is fundamental and that this belief "is amply supported by the unique status accorded public education by our society, and by the close relationship between education and some of our most basic constitutional values."
(Blackmun, J.) Justice Blackmun noted that "when a state provides an education to some and denies it to others, it immediately and inevitably creates class distinctions of a type fundamentally inconsistent with" the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause because "an uneducated child is denied even the opportunity to achieve." When those children are members of an identifiable class, the state has created a separable and identifiable underclass.
(Powell, J.) Justice Powell emphasized the unique character of the case. He noted that under the Texas law, a group of children is deprived of the opportunity for education because of a violation of law by their parents. "A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass of future citizens and residents cannot be reconciled with one of the fundamental purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment."
Dissent
(Burger, C.J.) The dissent asserted that any issues concerning whether or not to admit children of undocumented immigrants into public schools should be dealt with by the legislature as opposed to the judiciary. The dissenting Justices agreed that "it would be folly—and wrong—to tolerate creation of a segment of society made up of illiterate persons." However, they concluded that such a decision should be made by the political branches because it is a policy issue inappropriate for the Court to undertake."
United States Courts
Posted from uscourts.gov
Supreme Court
Law
Immigration
Education
Learning
Posted 4 y ago
Responses: 7
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google