Дело Plyler v. Doe: Право на образование для детей нелегальных иммигрантов в США

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U. S. 202 (1982), was a landmark decision in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education of undocumented immigrant children in the United States and an independent school district's attempt to charge an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each student to compensate for lost state funding. The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their immigration status must be examined under a rational basis standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial government interest. The application of Plyler v. Doe has been limited to K–12 schooling. Other cases and legislation such as Toll v. Moreno and the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 have allowed some states to pass statutes that deny illegal immigrant students eligibility for in state tuition, scholarships, or enrollment at public colleges and universities.

In 1975 Texas "prohibited the use of state funds for the education of children who had not been legally admitted to the U. S" (457 U. S.202). The policy also allowed schools to deny enrollment of any "unauthorized" child seeking to attend the school. Then in 1977, the Tyler Independent School District instituted a policy mandating that foreign born students who were not considered to be legally admitted to the United States were required to pay tuition. "Under the school district's policy, children were considered "legally admitted" if (1) they possessed documentation showing that they were legally present in the United States, or (2) federal immigration authorities confirmed they were in the process of securing such documentation."

Revisions to education laws in Texas in 1975 withheld state funds for educating children who had not been legally admitted to the United States and authorized local school districts to deny enrollment to such students. A 5–4 majority of the Supreme Court found the policy to violate the Fourteenth Amendment, as illegal immigrant children are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and therefore had protection from discrimination unless a substantial state interest could be shown to justify it. The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime". The dissenting opinion also rejected that claim and agreed with the Court that "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to immigrants who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically 'within the jurisdiction' of a state". However, in his dissent, Chief Justice Burger asserted that issues of whether or not to admit children of illegal immigrants should be delegated to Congress and not the judiciary, as it is more a policy issue than a constitutional one. Burger further argued that the "Equal Protection Clause does not mandate identical treatment of different categories of persons" and that Texas did in fact have a legitimate reason to seek to distinguish between individuals who were residing in the country legally versus illegally. William Rehnquist was so disgusted by the decision that he referred to illegal immigrant children as "wetbacks" in conference, which angered Thurgood Marshall, the only non white justice on the court. This case was decided together with Texas v. Certain Named and Unnamed Alien Children.

In May 2022 Texas Governor Greg Abbott expressed interest in attempting to overturn the case, following the leak of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. The draft opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, would overturn Roe v. Wade on the basis that abortion rights were not explicitly protected in the Constitution and thus would allow states to determine whether to protect or restrict those rights. Abbott stated the same would apply to the rights to education for immigrants, which is only established by Plyler and not a constitutional right.