Challenging Plyler v, Doe Explained

Earlier this week, IE blogged about the threats of the Texas governor to challenge Plyler v. Doe, the 1982 Supreme Court decision invalidating a Texas law that barred undocumented children from the K-12 public schools.  For thorough analysis of Plyler and its legacy, check out the late Michael Olivas’  wonderful book (No Undocumented Child Left Behind (2012).  As summarized by the American Immigration Council,

“For more than [forty]y years, Plyler has ensured equal access to education for children regardless of status . . . . States and localities have passed measures and adopted unofficial policies that violate the spirit—if not the letter—of the Court’s decision. For example, in 2011 the state of Alabama enacted a law requiring school administrators to determine the immigration status of newly enrolling students, which in turn resulted in markedly higher rates of absenteeism for Latino school children and caused much fear and confusion in schools. Supporters of the Alabama law wanted to challenge Plyler itself, claiming the Court implied that its ruling could change if sufficient evidence established that the enrollment of undocumented children harmed the overall quality of education, but that challenge was blocked by the Courts.”

The threat to Plyler must be taken seriously in light of the leaked draft opinion overruling the Supreme Court’s decision in Roe v. Wade, which is having reverberations from coast to coast.   If a conservative Supreme Court overrules Roe v. Wade, other important precedents might come next.

Paul J. Weber for the Associated Press (“EXPLAINER: Schools may be Texas’ next immigration fight”) provides some background about Texas Governor Greg Abbot’s statement that Plyler v. Doe “is another longstanding precedent worth challenging.”  Abbott is running for a third term in November and has advocated hardline immigration measures, including bussing migrants from Texas to Washington D.C. and sending state troopers to the U.S./Mexico border.

KJ