Discover

'''Plyler v. Doe''', , was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a state statute denying funding for education to children who were illegal immigrants. The Court found that where states limit the rights afforded to people based on their status as aliens, this limitation must be examined under an intermediate scrutiny standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial goal of the State.

Contents

Summary

Implication for U.S-born children of illegal immigrants

Sources

Summary

Revisions to education laws in Texas in 1975 withheld state funds for educating children who had not been legally admitted to the United States and authorized local school districts to deny enrollment to such students. A 5-to-4 majority of the Supreme Court found that this policy was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, as illegal immigrant children are people "in any ordinary sense of the term", and therefore had protection from discrimination unless a substantial state interest could be shown to justify it.
The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and impose[d] its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control" — namely, the fact of their having been brought illegally into the United States by their parents. The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime." The majority refused to accept that any substantial state interest would be served by discrimination on this basis, and it struck down the Texas law.
The dissenting minority agreed in principle that it was unwise for illegal alien children to be denied a public education, but the four dissenting justices argued that the Texas law was not so objectionable as to be unconstitutional; that this issue ought to be dealt with through the legislative process; that "[t]he Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem"; and that the majority was overstepping its bounds by seeking "to do Congress' job for it, compensating for congressional inaction".
This case was decided together with ''Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Children''.

Implication for U.S-born children of illegal immigrants

''Plyler v. Doe'' did not explicitly address the question of so-called "anchor babies" born in the United States to illegal immigrant parents; the children dealt with in the case were born outside the U.S. and had entered the country illegally along with their parents.
However, the court's reasoning was significant because it ruled that illegal immigrants residing in a state are "within the jurisdiction" of that state. This implies that the U.S.-born children of such immigrants are "subject to the jurisdiction [of the United States]", and therefore qualify for birthright citizenship under the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This implication is made explicit in a footnote that states
:''no plausible distinction with respect to Fourteenth Amendment "jurisdiction" can be drawn between resident aliens whose entry into the United States was lawful, and resident aliens whose entry was unlawful'' [1].

Sources

★ Oyez Case Info

★ Supreme Court Decision - Syllabus of 457 U.S. 202, Plyler v. Doe

★ Supreme Court Decision - Opinion of 457 U.S. 202, Plyler v. Doe