• By Paige Duggins-Clay, J.D. • IDRA Newsletter • January 2025 •
This month, long-standing restrictions on immigration enforcement in “sensitive locations,” including schools, was terminated, spreading fear and confusion for educators and families.
Many school leaders took steps to reassure families. Others did the opposite, such as the Oklahoma Board of Education which voted to require its school districts to track and report the number of students whose families have not provided proof of citizenship or legal status. Such an action has an illegal chilling effect on those students’ rights to access education.
In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe that the right of undocumented students to attend public school is guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. IDRA provided expert testimony and data in the lower court cases that were consolidated into the Plyler v. Doe case and has since helped schools protect the rights of immigrant students. This article presents highlights of the case and the implications of the ruling.
Background
In one of those last-minute backdoor tricks, an amendment slipped through the Texas Legislature without debate in 1975 setting off a chain of events that shoved a specific selection of children out of school. Undocumented immigrant children were suddenly excluded from education.
In multiple school districts, with the help of advocates, brave parents took a stand, risking their own futures to secure that of their children.
IDRA provided extensive information for one of the first court cases dealing with the education of undocum
ented children in Texas, Plyler v. Doe (1978) and others. IDRA founder, Dr. José A. Cárdenas, served as an expert witness for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) during the trial in Tyler, and IDRA’s retired director of policy, Dr. Albert Cortez, testified in the trials in Houston and Dallas.
Then, on June 15, 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that public schools must serve all children, regardless of immigration status. The court concluded that denying students free enrollment in public schools based on immigration status violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
The court said denying immigrant students enrollment in public schools creates a class of marginalized youth with limited opportunities for education and social advancement. Thus, the U.S. Constitution requires states to provide all children with equal access
to public K-12 schools.
This decision is vital. As a result of the Plyler ruling:
- Schools cannot deny admission to a student during initial enrollment or at any other time on the basis of immigration status;
- Schools cannot treat a student differently to determine residency;
- Schools cannot engage in any practices to “chill” the right of access to school;
- Schools cannot require students or parents to disclose or document their immigration status;
- Schools cannot make inquiries of students or parents intended to expose their immigration status; and
- Schools cannot require social security numbers from all students, as this may expose immigration status.
And like other students, undocumented children in fact are required under state laws to attend school until they reach a mandated age.
This Matters for Quality Education
All students deserve access to high-quality public schools. Programs that support early literacy and academic success, such as early education and bilingual and special education, prepare students for the rest of their educational careers and beyond.
Plyler v. Doe supports high-quality schools by:
- protecting basic access for all students to enroll in school;
- promoting trust and safety among schools, students and families; and
- ensuring that all eligible children get the educational services they deserve.
Threats to Plyler Harm Students
Actions like those taken by the Oklahoma State Board of Education (whose rule is not yet in practice) are not new. Some politicians, including the Texas governor, have suggested that the well-established precedent set by Plyler v. Doe be challenged despite that ruling’s critical role in our educational and economic prosperity.
Disregarding Plyler v. Doe would lead to:
- denying children an education;
- discriminating against children based on their or their families’ immigration status;
- creating a chilling effect that makes children and families feel unwelcome and unprotected at school; and
- creating an underclass of children without basic education or economic opportunities.
But no governor – or president – can override this ruling.
What You Can Do
Denying immigrant children access to a free public education is unconstitutional and against the law. At IDRA, we strengthen schools to work for all children, families and communities. Help make this goal a reality for every child.
- Affirm students’ rights to attend public school.
- Openly and vocally oppose efforts to challenge Plyler v. Doe and corresponding guidelines for equal educational access.
- Ensure all educators create welcoming environments for all children and their families.
- Share IDRA’s bilingual infographic, “Welcoming Immigrant Students in School,” which has more information on what schools can do (see Page 4).
- Support local and state policies for safe and inclusive schools for students and teachers, including through inclusive curricula, investments in early education and bilingual education programs, and support for mental health and counseling staff who are knowledgeable of students’ and families’ rights.
Even with this month’s removal of long-standing restrictions on immigration enforcement in “sensitive locations,” including schools, school personnel – especially principals and those involved with student registration and enrollment – should know they have no legal obligation to enforce U.S. immigration laws.
Paige Duggins-Clay, J.D., is IDRA’s chief legal analyst. Comments and questions may be directed to her via email at paige.duggins-clay@idra.org.
[© 2025, IDRA. This article originally appeared in the January edition of the IDRA Newsletter. Permission to reproduce this article is granted provided the article is reprinted in its entirety and proper credit is given to IDRA and the author.]