Thread: Plyer v. Doe /Illegals kids Education.

Plyler v. Doe
Media Items
Plyler v. Doe - Oral Argument
Expanded View
Download MP3
Advocates
Peter D. Roos (Argued the cause for the appellees in Plyler v. Doe)
Peter A. Schey (Argued the cause for appellees in the related case)
John C. Hardy (Argued the cause for the appellants in Plyler v. Doe)
Richard L. Arnett (Argued the cause for appellants in the related case)
Case Basics
Docket No.: 80-1538
Appellee: Doe
Appellant: Plyler
Consolidation:
No. 80-1934 Decided By: Burger Court (1981-1986)
Opinion: 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Argued: Tuesday, December 1, 1981
Decided: Tuesday, June 15, 1982
Issues: Civil Rights, Immigration and Naturalization, Access to Public Education
Categories: conlaw, education, aliens
LocationNo location information present. 
Cite this page
The Oyez Project, Plyler v. Doe , 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
available at: (http://oyez.org/cases/1980-1989/1981/1981_80_1538)
(last visited Tuesday, August 17, 2010).
Facts of the Case:
A revision to the Texas education laws in 1975 allowed the state to withhold from local school districts state funds for educating children of illegal aliens. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Child.

Question:
Did the law violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment?

Conclusion:
Yes. 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.

Decisions

Decision: 5 votes for Doe, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Equal Protection

Sort by Ideology
Plyer v. Doe
Author: Lindsey

Facts

Texas statute denies free public education to illegal alien children.

Issue and Holding

Does denying public education to illegal aliens violate the EPC? Yes.

Reasoning

Alienage isn’t a suspect class because it’s the product of a conscious and unlawful action.

Public education isn’t a fundamental right guaranteed by the constitutional, but neither is it like other forms of social welfare because it has a lasting importance in the life of the child and it is important to maintain our basis institutions.

Therefore, to be rational it needs to further some substantial goal of the state

Rationales:

State shouldn’t have to benefit those who enter the state illegally. BUT, you shouldn’t punish the children who have no effect over their parents’ illegal/immoral conduct (compare to discrimination against illegitimates).
State has an interest in protecting from an influx of illegal immigrants. BUT, there’s no evidence suggesting that illegal entrants impose any significant burden on the economy (in fact, the opposite is true)
Undocumented children impose special burdens on the state’s ability to provide high-quality education. BUT, in terms of educational costs and need, undocumented children are basically the same as legal residents.
Alien children are less likely than others to remain within the boundaries of the State and to put their education to productive social use within the state. BUT, the same could be said of all other children.


It is irrational to create a subclass of illiterates (which would add to the problems of unemployment and crime) in order to make little savings. Absent congressional policy favoring the rule, it violates the EPC.

Judgment

Unconstitutional

Burger dissent: Since the majority says there is no suspect class, they shouldn’t be using a quasi-suspect class analysis. Instead, they should use a RR test. The law passes the RR test.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=Plyer+v.+D ... ORM=IE8SRC

More 14th amendment huhbubub?

If a Judge can rule that American taxpayers SHOULD HAVE TO pay for school for illegal alien children, they can say we have to pay for the education of every child on Earth. This is liberal judicial activism at its worst.

Where does it end? Or does it? Is the U S going to be forced to feed and cloth (not to mention pay for healthcare and housing for) everyone on the freakin planet?