The Targets For A Landmark Texas Case

More than four decades ago, the educational landscape in the United States fundamentally changed thanks to Tyler, Texas. A landmark case by the Supreme Court in 1982, known as Plyler v. Doe, would establish that undocumented children could attend American public schools. Now, as estimates point that 1.8 million undocumented children are benefiting from that ruling, many Republicans are doing everything in their power to reverse it.

On March 18, 2026, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government held a hearing titled "Immigration Policy by Court Order: The Adverse Effects of Plyler v. Doe." Chairman Chip Roy, a candidate in the Republican runoff for Attorney General, called the 1982 ruling "constitutionally indefensible."

That same week, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Homeland Security Advisor Stephen Miller met behind closed doors with Texas Republican legislators in Washington. He asked why the Legislature had not passed a bill in the previous session that would have restricted public school funding to children of citizens and those "lawfully present in the United States”. Miller opened the immigration portion of the meeting with a different question: "Do we have a RINO problem in Texas?" Tom Oliverson, chair of the Texas House Republican Caucus, described the reaction as "uncomfortable silence."

Tyler, 1977

In 1975, the Texas Legislature passed HB 1126. The bill amended Section 21.031 of the Texas Education Code. It restricted free public education to children of citizens and legally admitted foreigners. The state stopped funding districts for the education of undocumented children.

On July 21, 1977, the Tyler Independent School District board adopted a policy charging undocumented children $1,000 per year. The district enrolled 16,000 students at the time. The court found the number of undocumented children to be at most sixty. 

MALDEF (The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) represented the families who decided to sue Tyler ISD. On September 6, 1977, MALDEF filed the lawsuit on behalf of four families under pseudonyms. 

Federal Judge William Wayne Justice issued a preliminary injunction on September 12, 1977, allowing the children back into school. On September 14, 1978, Justice issued a permanent ruling. He found the tuition policy did not deter undocumented immigrants from entering the state. He found that the increase in school enrollment was primarily attributable to children who were legal residents, and that any savings from exclusion would be minimal. 

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Justice’s decision in 1982. By that time, lawsuits challenging similar exclusion policies had been filed in federal courts across Texas and were consolidated into a single case in the Southern District. 

The Supreme Court

On June 15, 1982, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 in Plyler v. Doe that the Fourteenth Amendment protects “persons,” not only citizens. Thus, children cannot bear punishment for their parents immigration status.

Texas tried to offer three justifications: protecting the state budget, deterring illegal immigration, and the logic of educating only those who would remain. The Court rejected all three. The majority observed that it is difficult to understand precisely what the State hopes to achieve by promoting 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 Court applied neither strict scrutiny nor the minimal rational basis standard. It required the state to show that the law furthered a “substantial state interest”, imposing a burden on a class of children who bore no responsibility for their status. 

Texas, 2025-2026 

In February 2025, state Senator Bob Hall filed SB 1205. The bill would have required districts to document student immigration status and charge tuition to undocumented children. SB 1205 was referred to the State Affairs committee on February 28, 2025, but it received no hearing. There were several events, however, that would impact the educational lives of undocumented Texans.

On June 4, 2025, the DOJ sued Texas over the Texas Dream Act, which allowed undocumented students to receive in-state college tuition since it was passed in 2001. Attorney General Ken Paxton did not defend the law. He filed a joint motion with the DOJ asking the court to block it. Federal Judge Reed O’Connor entered the consent judgment the same day. The entire process took about six hours. According to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, approximately 73,000 undocumented students were enrolled in Texas higher education. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board reported 18,500 students signed the in-state tuition affidavit in 2024. 

Months before the Dream Act was repealed, schools around the state were grappling with the rescission of a DHS directive, granting certain protected areas (like schools) from immigration enforcement. For many Texas families, sending their children to school was no longer a safe act.

The recent efforts to potentially repeal Plyler prompted the largest teacher’s union in Texas to respond. “All students deserve access to a quality education that unlocks a better future for them and their families,” said Texas AFT President Zeph Capo.   

What Texas Could Lose

According to ITEP and Every Texan, undocumented immigrants in Texas paid $4.9 billion in state and local taxes in 2022. Of that, $1.8 billion went to property taxes that directly fund schools. According Every Texan, undocumented immigrants in Texas pay an effective state and local tax rate of 8.9%. The wealthiest 1% of Texas residents pay an effective rate of 4.6%.

FWD.us found that since 1982, 4.8 million people benefited from the Plyler ruling. The taxes they paid over their lifetimes exceeded the cost of their education by $633 billion. If the ruling is overturned, projected lifetime income losses exceed $1 trillion.

All nine justices who heard the case in 1982 agreed the policy of denying children education was unwise. Chief Justice Burger wrote in dissent: "I would agree without hesitation that it is senseless for an enlightened society to deprive any children, including those who have entered the country unlawfully, of an elementary education.” The four dissenters disagreed on constitutionality. None disagreed on the policy.

In a statement to Texas Signal, MALDEF (the original Plyler defender) was careful to note they did not see an imminent threat to Plyler. “First, the decision is incorporated (since 1996) in federal statute, so it is now a part of federal legislated policy, not just a part of Supreme Court precedent,” said MALDEF President and General Counsel Thomas Saenz. “Second, no laws directly violating Plyler are under serious consideration in the states because careful review of such legislation reveals the likely severe consequences not just for the students who would be excluded, but for all of public education.”