<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.11.5 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:33:33 GMT--><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"><title>Plyler v. Doe (1982)</title><subtitle>Plyler v. Doe (1982)</subtitle><id>http://www.basicallylaw.com/plyler-v-doe-1982/</id><link rel="alternate" type="application/xhtml+xml" href="http://www.basicallylaw.com/plyler-v-doe-1982/"/><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.basicallylaw.com/plyler-v-doe-1982/atom.xml"/><updated>2009-12-01T19:46:49Z</updated><generator uri="http://www.squarespace.com/" version="Squarespace Site Server v5.11.5 (http://www.squarespace.com/)">Squarespace</generator><entry><title>Plyler v. Doe (1982)</title><id>http://www.basicallylaw.com/plyler-v-doe-1982/2009/12/1/plyler-v-doe-1982.html</id><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://www.basicallylaw.com/plyler-v-doe-1982/2009/12/1/plyler-v-doe-1982.html"/><author><name>Paul</name></author><published>2009-12-01T19:38:14Z</published><updated>2009-12-01T19:38:14Z</updated><content type="html" xml:lang="en-US"><![CDATA[<p>Read the opinion <a href="http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0457_0202_ZS.html">here</a>.</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Issue</span></strong>.&nbsp; Is a local town ordinance that excluded undocumented children from Texas's public school unless they paid a full tuition fee, violate the Equal Protection Clause?</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Background</span></strong>.&nbsp; A class action lawsuit was brought on behalf of undocumented children who could not be enrolled in certain Texas public schools unless they paid a "full tuition fee."&nbsp; Lower federal courts ruled that exclusion of undocumented children violated the Equal Protection Clause.&nbsp; The Supreme Court agreed.</p>
<p><strong><span style="text-decoration: underline;">Court's Analysis</span></strong>.&nbsp; Even though undocumented aliens are not a suspect class and a free public education is not a fundamental right, the Supreme Court found that the State still had to come up with a justification that showed its law furthers some substantial interest.&nbsp; The State failed to do so in this case.</p>
<p>While undocumented aliens may constitute an underclass in the United States, it does not mean the government cannot refuse to extend benefits to this underclass.&nbsp; Still, children are special members of this underclass.&nbsp; They did not illegally enter this country under their own free will.&nbsp; The same is true about their remaining in the United States.&nbsp; There is no rational reason why they should be denied a benefit that is provided to the children of citizens who are legally here.</p>
<p>Denying the children of undocumented alied access to free public education further punishes them and creates the likelihood of a lifetime of hardship on a discrete class of children because of the actions of their parents.&nbsp; The Equal Protection Clause will not allow for this.&nbsp; As the Court recognized:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[The law] is directed against children, and imposes its discriminatory burden on the basis of a legal characteristic over which children can have little control.&nbsp; It is thus difficult to conceive of a rational justification for penalizing their children for their presence within the United States.</p>
</blockquote>]]></content></entry></feed>