The Supreme Court case that affirmed undocumented immigrants’ right to a free public education

In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot deny children a free public education because of their immigration status.

Recently, some conservatives and members of the Trump administration have questioned that right to a free public education and signaled interest in overturning the case.

This quick guide aims to help you understand the case that first brought the issue to the Supreme Court.

Why was Plyler v. Doe filed?

In 1975, Texas passed a law denying state funding for the education of undocumented students and allowing school districts to refuse their enrollment. In 1977, the Tyler Independent School District charged $1,000 a year in tuition to students who could not prove their immigration status.

A class-action lawsuit was filed on behalf of 16 students from Mexico against the district and its superintendent, James Plyler. A district court ruled that the policy violated the Constitution, and a federal appeals court upheld that decision. The district and the state of Texas then appealed to the Supreme Court.

What did the plaintiffs argue?

The plaintiffs argued that in denying a free public education to undocumented immigrant children, Texas and the Tyler Independent School District were violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which says “No state shall … deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”

What did Texas argue?

Texas argued that barring undocumented children from public schools would save the state money and improve the quality of education for other children. In addition, Texas argued that undocumented immigrants were less likely to stay in the state and therefore would not “put their education to productive social or political use” in Texas.

What did the Supreme Court justices say?

The Supreme Court justices said that “the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection extends to anyone, citizen or stranger, who is subject to the laws of a State” and that if states provide a free public education to U.S. citizens, permanent residents and others who are here with legal immigration status, they cannot deny a free public education to undocumented children without “showing that it furthers some substantial state interest.”

They found that Texas did not show that excluding undocumented children from a free public education would further a state interest, because charging tuition to undocumented children would not “stem the tide of illegal immigration,” nor was there proof that excluding them would improve the quality of education for other students. They also said that undocumented children are no less likely than other children to remain in the state and put their education to productive social or political use.

The justices said “the deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological wellbeing of the individual” and “whatever savings might be achieved by denying these children an education, they are wholly insubstantial in light of the costs involved to these children, the State, and the Nation.”

Have there been attempts to overturn Plyler v. Doe?

Several states have passed laws that violate Plyler v. Doe. California voters in 1994 passed Proposition 187, which prohibited public schools from enrolling undocumented students and required schools to notify federal immigration authorities about undocumented students. The measure was struck down in federal court.

In 2011, Alabama passed a law, later blocked in court, requiring school administrators to check students’ immigration status and report it to the state board of education.

Some school districts have also adopted policies that make it difficult for undocumented students to enroll, such as asking students to submit Social Security numbers or U.S. birth certificates. In 2011, the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Justice reminded schools that they cannot deny students enrollment because of where they were born or whether they have a Social Security number. That “Dear Colleague Letter” has now been marked “Archived Information” by the Trump administration.

In 2025, lawmakers in at least six states (Idaho, Indiana, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Texas) introduced bills to bar undocumented children from enrolling in public schools, require schools to collect and report children’s immigration status or require schools to charge tuition for undocumented students. The Tennessee bill passed in the state’s House last month.

What are conservatives calling for now?

The Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank, has urged states to pass laws barring undocumented children from public schools, aiming to prompt a legal challenge that could lead the Supreme Court to overturn Plyler v. Doe. The organization claims, “Illegal aliens should not be eligible for federal, state, or local government benefits, including through their children, because the receipt of such benefits facilitates longer unlawful residence in the United States and takes resources from American citizens and lawful immigrants.”

In March, a House Judiciary subcommittee held a hearing to “examine why Plyler v. Doe , the 1982 Supreme Court decision requiring states to provide illegal aliens a free K-12 education, was wrongly decided and how it harms America’s schools and students.”

According to the New York Times, Stephen Miller also pressed Texas lawmakers in a closed-door meeting in March about why they had not passed a bill that would have “funded public education only for children who are citizens or lawfully present in the United States.” And according to Chalkbeat, three states limited undocumented students’ access to career and technical education courses and dual enrollment — taking college classes in high school — in response to guidance from the Trump administration that has since been blocked in court.

What do proponents of education for undocumented immigrants say?

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights and 41 additional organizations signed a letter to members of Congress in late March supporting the Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe. The organizations argued that access to education for undocumented immigrant children has generated billions of dollars in state and local tax revenues, increased the gross domestic product and reduced health care costs.

What is California’s position?

California’s governor, lawmakers and superintendent of public instruction have repeatedly affirmed all children’s right to a free public education, regardless of immigration status. In 2025, the state passed laws prohibiting schools and child care centers from allowing immigration enforcement officers to enter or question students, unless they have a judicial warrant or court order, and requiring schools and universities to notify students and parents when federal immigration enforcement is confirmed on campus.

What would happen if Plyler v. Doe is overturned?

If a law or policy barring undocumented immigrants from enrolling in public school or requiring them to pay tuition is passed in a state or school district, it would most likely be challenged in court. If the case made it to the Supreme Court and Plyler v. Doe were overturned, California would likely still allow undocumented children to enroll in school.

An estimated 112,000 children in California schools are undocumented, according to the Migration Policy Institute. However, it could open the door for the federal government to withhold federal funding for these children’s education.