Conservative Campaign Targets Landmark Ruling on Undocumented Children's Education
Conservatives are mounting a concerted attack on a longstanding legal precedent that ensures undocumented children can attend public schools in the United States. The Supreme Court's 1982 decision in Plyler v. Doe established that undocumented immigrants are protected under the 14th Amendment, mandating that public schools must allow children without legal status to enroll. This ruling has provided generations of young people with the fundamental right to an education, fostering integration and opportunity.
Efforts to Undermine Plyler v. Doe Gain Momentum
Emboldened by former President Donald Trump's hardline anti-immigrant policies, some conservatives are now actively seeking to chip away at the Plyler decision with the ultimate goal of overturning it entirely. Such a move could jeopardize the education of more than 600,000 children, instill widespread fear in immigrant families across the nation, and further a broader right-wing campaign against public education. While overturning legal precedent cannot happen overnight, conservatives have developed a strategic playbook to advance their agenda.
In several Republican-led states, officials have introduced bills designed to trigger lawsuits that could eventually reach the Supreme Court, mirroring tactics used to promote religious agendas in schools despite constitutional prohibitions on state-sponsored religion. The current conservative-majority court has shown sympathy toward right-wing defendants, including recent rulings favoring Christian plaintiffs in religious liberty cases. Alejandra Vazquez Baur, a fellow at the progressive research organization the Century Foundation, noted, "There are not just reasons to believe that they're going after Plyler, but several proof points that this is a central priority of conservatives in this administration."
State-Level Legislation Puts Undocumented Families at Risk
Multiple states, predominantly under Republican control, have proposed measures that place undocumented children and their families in precarious positions when interacting with the school system. For instance, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Idaho, and Ohio have considered bills requiring parents to disclose their child's immigration status during enrollment, information that could potentially be used for enforcement actions against families. While Oklahoma's and Idaho's proposals stalled early, Tennessee's and Ohio's bills are progressing through legislative committees.
In Texas, lawmakers introduced bills to force undocumented students to pay tuition for normally free public schools and to outright ban them from schools, though both efforts failed. New Jersey is still evaluating a bill to impose public school tuition on undocumented children, but it is likely to fail due to Democratic dominance in the state government. These legislative attempts highlight a growing trend on the right to challenge the Plyler ruling.
Broader Conservative Agenda and Its Implications
The issue is gaining traction among conservative groups, with the Heritage Foundation, a far-right think tank behind Project 2025, releasing a report last month urging states to pass laws that would challenge Plyler. Additionally, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) held a congressional subcommittee hearing last month to argue that the Plyler decision was incorrect and allegedly harms taxpayers. In his opening statement, Roy declared, "It's time we meet the moment to overturn Plyler v. Doe. It's time for Congress and the courts to address the glaring failures of this court decision and finally alleviate Texans and Americans alike from this burden." He and other Republicans contend that undocumented children strain resources in public schools nationwide.
According to The New York Times, Trump adviser Stephen Miller recently traveled to Texas to criticize lawmakers for not passing bills that would block undocumented children from attending school. Miller has been instrumental in shaping aggressive federal immigration policies. Barring undocumented kids from schools would have severe consequences, including targeting immigrants worried about detention or deportation, reducing funding for public education, and eroding community trust in schools. Leslie Villegas, a senior policy analyst at New America, observed, "I think they see this as a way to undermine the power of public education."
Potential Fallout for Public Education and Communities
For years, conservatives have attempted to erode the U.S. education system, with Trump even proposing to shut down the Department of Education. Overturning Plyler would fundamentally alter the role of public schools, as Vazquez Baur explained: "The whole system as we know it would change because it would be a system of enforcement, rather than a system of learning." Immigration enforcement in schools can have detrimental effects on all children, regardless of legal status. For example, when Trump deployed ICE agents to patrol Minneapolis, educators reported that many children stopped attending school out of fear that officials could track them and target their families.
Losing undocumented students could also devastate school budgets, as states often allocate funding based on enrollment or attendance. Reduced enrollment means less money, leading to fewer teachers, outdated technology, and inadequate resources. Vazquez Baur warned, "All because some conservatives want to say these kids can't enroll." Critics of Plyler argue that undocumented children strain school resources, particularly services like English language learner (ELL) programs. However, 75% of children using ELL services are American citizens, and immigrants pay taxes that support public schools.
Villegas countered, "They pinned their argument on the financials, but the financials don't support their case." In Tennessee, a state government review found that blocking undocumented kids from public schools could result in the loss of over $1 billion in federal funding. The bill's sponsor, Republican State Rep. William Lamberth, acknowledged at a hearing that he never received a clear answer from the Trump administration on potential funding losses. Consequently, the bill was revised to focus on tracking rather than removing undocumented children.
Dangerous Precedent and Broader Societal Impact
Villegas emphasized, "I think this is about who they believe should have access to an education. What we're hearing and seeing is that the vision doesn't include immigrant kids, regardless of citizenship." Overturning Plyler because certain students are perceived as a "burden" could set a perilous precedent, potentially applying similar logic to other groups, such as students with disabilities. Vazquez Baur cautioned, "That should be a big red flag not just for progressives, but for anybody that cares about a society that's based on equality."
