Thread: Plyler V. Doe Guaranteed Illegal Immigrant Children Schoolin

Plyler V. Doe Guaranteed Illegal Immigrant Children Schooling

Friday marks the 25th anniversary of a historic U.S. Supreme Court ruling on a case that originated in Tyler - a ruling described as a constitutional victory for the rights of illegal immigrants in the United States.

"Illegal Alien Children Due Free Schooling, U.S. Supreme Court Hands Down Historic Ruling," was the headline across the front of a June 1982 Tyler Morning Telegraph. The story explained that the high court, in a 5-4 decision, ruled for the first time that the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause applies to illegal immigrants.

It was June 15, 1982, when the court held in this case, Plyler v. Doe, that a Texas statute, which withheld from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the country and authorized school districts to deny enrollment to those children, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

In September 1977, then Tyler Independent School District Superintendent Jim Plyler and the board of trustees at the time were named in a lawsuit filed in federal court as a result of a policy it had adopted to charge $1,000 tuition per illegal immigrant for enrolling in local schools, in keeping with the state's statute.

The suit was filed on behalf of three Mexican-American couples and a single Mexican-American parent named as guardians for 16 Mexican-American children. The plaintiffs in the case were listed under pseudonyms such as Bo, Roe and Doe to conceal their identities.

Twenty-five years after the Supreme Court ruling that went against the district's policy, the "Plyler" in the historic Plyler v. Doe case said he is glad it worked out that way.

"The youngsters needed an education," Plyler said at his Tyler home this week. "They didn't need to be here and not have an education. We'd pay for them to go to school or we'd pay for them when they became gang members or convicts or whatever they might become if they didn't have an education and a way to make a living."

The Supreme Court, in its majority opinion from 25 years ago, also highlighted the importance of an education, stating, "Education has a fundamental role in maintaining the fabric of our society. We cannot ignore the significant social costs borne by our nation when select groups are denied the means to absorb the values and skills upon which our social order rests."

But Chief Justice Warren Burger wrote in the dissenting opinion that, "The court employs, and in my view abuses, the Fourteenth Amendment in an effort to become an omnipotent and omniscient problem solver."

Despite losing the case, John C. Hardy, the TISD attorney who argued the case before the Supreme Court in 1981, said the ruling was, indeed, a landmark decision.

"It affected lots of people - and it still does," said Hardy, who is still TISD's attorney. "It's a very clear landmark constitutional case. ..."

He said the case is still important today because it basically says "illegal aliens are entitled to the same rights as a U.S. citizen."

U.S. District Judge William Wayne Justice, a longtime judge in the Eastern District of Texas, made the initial ruling in favor of the plaintiffs that was later affirmed upon appeals.

Justice, who has issued decisions in many other noteworthy cases, said in a phone interview this week that the Plyler case was "the most important decision I have ever made because it enabled a large segment of our society to gain an education that they wouldn't have otherwise had."

Origin of Case

Plyler said the Texas Legislature in 1975 passed a law that stated it would not fund education for illegal immigrants. When the district saw the number of Hispanic residents was increasing rapidly in 1977, Plyler recommended to the school board the district implement the policy of charging $1,000 tuition.

"It wasn't long until MALDEF (the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) filed suit," Plyler said.

It was Sept. 6, 1977, when the suit against Plyler and the school board was filed in federal court in Tyler by representatives of MALDEF. Several days later, on Sept. 11, 1977, Justice issued a preliminary injunction to bar TISD from its policy of charging $1,000. On Sept. 12, the court put the children back in school. Justice later made the injunction permanent.

But TISD appealed the decision.

"The school board felt firmly they were following the law and following what the desire was of the community at that time and appealed it to the Fifth Circuit," Hardy said. "The Fifth Circuit ruled against the school district and the state. ... The school board still felt strongly, and we went to the U.S. Supreme Court."

Hardy was just in his early 30s when he argued before the Supreme Court and faced questioning by justices. He would persuade at least four of them - Burger, William Rehnquist, Byron White and Sandra Day O'Connor - but not enough to win the case.

The longtime school attorney said TISD was not the only district at the time to be sued for charging tuition to illegal immigrants.

"Tyler was not alone," he said. "Their cases just didn't move as quickly through the court system."

TISD took the step a number of districts were taking, Hardy said, which was to try to charge tuition to offset some of the costs for educating the students.

"These were students who were coming in who didn't speak any English ... and frankly, they were more expensive to educate," Hardy said. "The school board thought there was a policy here that was appropriate to put in place to offset some of the costs of these students. The board was unanimous in their feelings on that. We did what a number of people around the state were doing."

Hardy said TISD had adopted the policy in an attempt to follow the law.

"It's not that somebody in Tyler or the school board was trying to single out or punish any of the kids, they were really trying to follow the law and do what was right for the citizens and the taxpayers," he said.

Plyler said the district did not have a choice about charging the tuition.

"We were told that if we didn't, then they would cut off our state funding," he said. "We couldn't survive without that."

When recommending to the board to adopt the tuition policy, Plyler never imagined it would lead to a landmark court case, he said.

He's glad today to hear those plaintiffs involved are doing well.

Children need an education, Plyler said, "and they need it while they are children."

IMPACT

When the suit was filed, Judge Justice realized immediately the case would probably go on to the Supreme Court, he said.

"This was a case that was absolutely without precedent," Justice said. "I had a hard job on my hands - to discern what would be pleasing to the Supreme Court, because I knew it was going to go to the Supreme Court."

Justice, who took senior status in 1998 and hears cases in the Western District of Texas now, said he believes his ruling on the case has been a "good decision for the country."

"...With an education, they are able to make a living and pay taxes. Without an education, they would have been in the lowest socioeconomic part of our society. ...," Justice said. "I'm afraid many of them without any education might have ended up as criminals of one kind or another."

Justice said he believes the United States gets a bargain when it educates children from Mexico and other places, even if the children are here illegally.

"If they graduate from high school, they are going to get middle-class jobs, usually," he said. "After they pay taxes for a few years, both state and federal, including the federal income tax, they pay for their education. From that point on, we get the benefit of their taxes each and every year."

Jose Sanchez, an attorney in Longview whose clients are mostly immigrants, knows first hand the significance of this case. Sanchez came as a child to the United States with his family - illegally. It was in 1981, as he was about to enter school in the Spring Hill area, that the U.S. Supreme Court heard the arguments in the case.

It has occurred to him that had the close court vote gone the other way, his life might be vastly different.

"I probably wouldn't be here as an attorney trying to help these people," he said. "That could have had a big effect on me personally."

Plyler v. Doe is still important today, the attorney said, noting the case has been used to help support subsequent cases to further rights of illegal immigrants. He likened it to the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision because of its implications. Brown was the decision that desegregated public schools in 1954.

The same arguments used to support the defense in the Plyler case are often still debated today, Sanchez said.

"The same issue is still present," Sanchez said. "But, luckily, because of that case, these immigrant kids have the right to have an education. Imagine if they had voted the other way. ..."

While Hardy recognized the case's significance, he said that at the time he may not have realized all of its ramifications.

"I knew it was important," he said. "I just maybe didn't think it would be put in there with cases like Brown v. Board of Education. ... These kind of cases don't come a long very often."

Hardy said it was an important case because it gave illegal immigrants constitutional rights via the Fourteenth Amendment.

"That means education, health, all types of rights," he said.

Looking back, he thinks the school board and the state were correct in their thinking. His opinion of the case hasn't really changed with the passage of 25 years, he said.

"But for the illegal act, they wouldn't be entitled to have these rights," he said. "I understand the other side of the arguments, but the school district is charged to follow the laws of the state and that's what they were trying to do at that time."

The biggest impact of the case to TISD has been on finances, he said.

"There's no question these children have been more costly," he said.

Angela Jenkins, director of communications for TISD, said it is not known how many students attending TISD classes are illegal immigrants - the district cannot ask.

Ms. Jenkins said educating students from all backgrounds is a priority for the school district.

"By educating all students, we are not only increasing their opportunities for success, but also increasing the success of our community," she said.

Students today who do not speak English are provided bilingual education and English as a Second Language (ESL) courses with the help of state and federal funding, she said.

"We are very happy for these resources so we can increase the chances of reaching all children," she said.

http://www.tylerpaper.com/apps/pbcs.dll ... /706150325

Bad decision then and bad decision now. It's an indictment of our courts that they were able to reach the issue of education for the children without first addressing whether or not the government had a duty to deport people who were in the country illegally.

5-4 decision!
Sure was close.
If I went to Mexico with my children would they get free education?
Oh, that's right, I wouldn't be allowed to stay in the first place.