Technology Teacher 03/17/2016

• Plyler v. Doe | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute

  • Plyler v. Doe
  • Held: A Texas statute which withholds from local school districts any state funds for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" into the United States, and which authorizes local school districts to deny enrollment to such children, violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
  • The illegal aliens who are plaintiffs in these cases challenging the statute may claim the benefit of the Equal Protection Clause, which provides that no State shall "deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
  • This Court's prior cases recognizing that illegal aliens are "persons" protected by the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which Clauses do not include the phrase "within its jurisdiction," cannot be distinguished on the asserted ground that persons who have entered the country illegally are not "within the jurisdiction" of a State even if they are present within its boundaries and subject to its laws.
  • The discrimination contained in the Texas statute cannot be considered rational unless it furthers some substantial goal of the State
  • Although undocumented resident aliens cannot be treated as a "suspect class," and although education is not a "fundamental right," so as to require the State to justify the statutory classification by showing that it serves a compelling governmental interest, nevertheless the Texas statute imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status.
  • children can neither affect their parents' conduct nor their own undocumented status
  • Public education has a pivotal role in maintaining the fabric of our society and in sustaining our political and cultural heritage; the deprivation of education takes an inestimable toll on the social, economic, intellectual, and psychological wellbeing of the individual, and poses an obstacle to individual achievement.
  • Nor is there any merit to the suggestion that undocumented children are appropriately singled out for exclusion because of the special burdens they impose on the State's ability to provide high-quality public education.
  • The record does not show that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State
  • The question presented by these cases is whether, consistent with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, Texas may deny to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens.
  • The 1975 revision also authorized local school districts to deny enrollment in their public schools to children not "legally admitted" to the country
  • The court found that neither § 21.031 nor the School District policy implementing it had "either the purpose or effect of keeping illegal aliens out of the State of Texas."

  • "the illegal alien of today may well be the legal alien of tomorrow,"    ^[n4]    and that, without an education, these undocumented   [p208]  children,

     

    [a]lready disadvantaged as a result of poverty, lack of English-speaking ability, and undeniable racial prejudices, . . . will become permanently locked into the lowest socio-economic class.

  • The District Court held that illegal aliens were entitled to the protection of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and that § 21.031 violated that Clause.
  • that exclusion of these children had not been shown to be necessary to improve education within the State
  • deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

• Due Process Equal Protection and Disenfranchisement | Equality and the 14th Amendment | Constitution USA | PBS

  • The Fourteenth Amendment promises that all persons in the United States shall enjoy the “equal protection of the laws.”
  • they cannot be discriminated against without good reason. All laws discriminate, because governments must make choices about what is lawful. For example, a law that prohibits burglary discriminates against burglars
  • Equal Protection Clause requires that a state have a good reason or a “rational basis” for such choices
  • In certain areas where there has been a history of past wrongful action—such as discrimination based on race or gender—the state must meet a much higher burden to justify such classifications.
  • Consequently, the Court held in Ricci v. DeStefano (2009) that the city of New Haven, Connecticut, could not invalidate a promotion exam for firefighters merely because a disproportionate percentage of racial minorities did not pass.
  • The Equal Protection Clause also applies to illegal immigrants in certain cases. In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the Supreme Court struck down a Texas law that prohibited children who were not legal residents to attend free public schools.
  • The Court held that “the Texas statute imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their disabling status.”

• Equal Protection

  • No State shall...deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

• Fundamental Rights and Equal Protection Clause Analysis: The Right to Vote and the Right to Education

  • Equal Protection and Fundamental Rights
  • Two types of classifications cause the Court to depart from its usual rational basis scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause: when group burdened by the classification is "suspect"  (e.g., a racial or  ethnic minority,  women,  aliens)  or when  the classification burdens  what the Court  determines to  be  a  "fundamental  right."
  • Heightened scutiny has been limited to cases involving substantial burdens placed on the right to vote, the right to be a candidate (access to the ballot), the right to migrate to another state, the right to marry and procreate and live as a family unit, and to fees that prevent indigents from obtaining equal access to justice  (e.g, divorcing, maintaining parental rights, and obtaining transcripts and securing legal assistance for a criminal appeal).
    

Posted from Diigo. The rest of my favorite links are here.