- [Instructor] In the United States,
most children can take going to school for granted.
But that expectation might be different
for children of undocumented immigrants,
as shown by the 1982 case of Plyler versus Doe.
In 1975, the Texas legislature enacted laws
granting local school districts the authority
to deny enrollment to undocumented, non-citizen children.
The legislature also withheld state funding
from school districts serving children
without authorization to live in the United States.
This withholding of funding meant
that undocumented children
had to pay tuition to attend public schools
while other children attended for free.
In 1982, four undocumented immigrant families
filed a class action suit
against a Texas school district.
The district court held that the state law
violated the Equal Protection Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Fifth Circuit affirmed
and the United States Supreme Court granted cert.
The question before the court was whether the Texas law
denying undocumented immigrant children
free public education
was an unconstitutional denial
of equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Brennan, writing for the five-justice majority,
held that distinguishing between documented
and undocumented children in the provision
of free public education violated
the Equal Protection Clause.
At the outset, Justice Brennan acknowledged
the universal character of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Brennan noted that its protections extend to all people,
including undocumented immigrants
within a state's jurisdiction.
In determining the appropriate standard of review,
Justice Brennan noted that immigration status
is a non-suspect classification.
That meant that the law
wasn't subject to strict scrutiny.
At the same time, Justice Brennan observed
that undocumented immigrant children
are members of a special underclass in the country.
They had no control over their parents'
unauthorized entry into the United States,
nor could they change their own immigration status.
In addition, although education isn't a fundamental right,
Justice Brennan emphasized that basic education
forms the foundation of productive citizenship.
Its denial to a discrete class of children
would prevent them from contributing
to the nation's progress.
Because of the important character of education
and the blamelessness of undocumented
children over their immigration status,
Justice Brennan determined that the standard of review
would be more demanding than rational basis.
Without expressly stating it,
Justice Brennan applied intermediate scrutiny.
This analysis requires a challenged classification
to be substantially related
to an important governmental interest.
The state argued that denying free
educational services to immigrant children
furthered the important governmental interest
in preserving limited fiscal resources.
Justice Brennan rejected that argument,
noting that immigrant children,
in terms of educational cost and need,
placed no special burden
on the state's ability to provide quality education.
Justice Brennan thus determined
that denying undocumented children
the same free education
that was provided to the state's other children
failed constitutional scrutiny.
The court struck down the Texas law as unconstitutional,
affirming the judgment of the court of appeals.
Justice Marshall wrote a concurring opinion.
He emphasized his belief
that education is a fundamental right
protected by the Due Process Clause
of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Justice Blackmun also concurred,
comparing education to the right to vote.
He argued that both issues strike at the heart
of equal protection principles
and the state should need more
than just a rational basis to justify their denial.
In Justice Powell's concurrence,
he agreed with the heightened scrutiny used by the majority.
He also noted that denying basic education
to a wide class of people
would likely have negative social costs.
Chief Justice Burger dissented.
He admonished the majority
for overstepping its bounds to handle policy problems
related to undocumented immigrants.
The chief justice argued
that because undocumented immigrant children
are a non-suspect class,
the rational basis standard applied.
By that standard, Burger would have upheld the law.
He reasoned that the state had a legitimate interest
in reserving its limited fiscal resources for citizens.
Further, the law was rationally related
to that cost-saving purpose.
In Plyler versus Doe,
the court applied an enhanced form
of constitutional scrutiny
to a supposedly non-suspect classification.
In doing so, the decision provided
the constitutional basis
for undocumented children
to receive public education
on the same basis as other children.
(pencil scrawling)