Plyler v. Doe

SCOTUS:

The District Court held that the illegal aliens were entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that violated that clause.

The Court of Appeals upheld the District Courts injunction. with notable probable jurisdiction.

Background:

A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state o withhold from local school districts stae funds for educating children of illegal aliens. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child.

Issue:

Did the law violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Arguments:

Texas officials had argued that illegal immigrants were not "within the jurisdiction" of the state and could thus not claim protections under the Fourteenth Amendment.

5 votes for Doe, 4 votes against

Briefs of amicus curiae:

The court majority found that the Texas law was "directed against children, and imposed 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.

Background and Issue

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance in both cases were filed by James J. Orlow for the American Immigration Lawyers Association; by Samuel Rabinove for the American Jewish Committee; by Bill Lann Lee for the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund; by the Edgewood Independent School District; by Peter B. Sandmann for the Legal Aid Society of San Francisco

The Court reasoned that illegal aliens and their children, though not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections. Since the state law severely disadvantaged the children of illegal aliens, by denying them the right to an education, and because Texas could not prove that the regulation was needed to serve a "compelling state interest," the Court struck down the law.

How it got to the Supreme Court

The Outcome

Dissenting Opinions and Precedents

Chief Justice Burger:

Were it our business to set the Nation's social policy, I would agree without hesitation that it is senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children -- including illegal aliens -- of an elementary education. I fully agree that it would be folly -- and wrong -- to tolerate creation of a segment of society made up of illiterate persons, many having a limited or no command of our language. However, the Constitution does not constitute us as "Platonic Guardians" nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, "wisdom," or "common sense." We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role as the Court does today....

Precedents:

San Antonio v. Rodriguez

Plyler v. Doe