<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!--Generated by Squarespace Site Server v5.11.5 (http://www.squarespace.com/) on Fri, 30 Jul 2010 23:30:41 GMT--><rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:rss="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:cc="http://web.resource.org/cc/"><rss:channel rdf:about="http://www.basicallylaw.com/plyler-v-doe-1982/"><rss:title>Plyler v. Doe (1982)</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.basicallylaw.com/plyler-v-doe-1982/</rss:link><rss:description></rss:description><dc:language>en-US</dc:language><dc:date>2010-07-30T23:30:42Z</dc:date><admin:generatorAgent rdf:resource="http://www.squarespace.com/">Squarespace Site Server v5.11.5 (http://www.squarespace.com/)</admin:generatorAgent><rss:items><rdf:Seq><rdf:li rdf:resource="http://www.basicallylaw.com/plyler-v-doe-1982/2009/12/1/plyler-v-doe-1982.html"/></rdf:Seq></rss:items></rss:channel><rss:item rdf:about="http://www.basicallylaw.com/plyler-v-doe-1982/2009/12/1/plyler-v-doe-1982.html"><rss:title>Plyler v. Doe (1982)</rss:title><rss:link>http://www.basicallylaw.com/plyler-v-doe-1982/2009/12/1/plyler-v-doe-1982.html</rss:link><dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator><dc:date>2009-12-01T19:38:14Z</dc:date><dc:subject></dc:subject><content:encoded><![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:encoded></rss:item></rdf:RDF>