In the summer of 1977, several families living in Tyler, Texas received a letter informing them that their children were no longer eligible to attend public school\u2014unless they could pay $1,000 in tuition. Nine-year-old Alfredo Lopez should have been starting second grade, but his family could not afford the fee. What set him apart from the other 16,000 children in Tyler who attended school for free? Alfredo and his siblings Faviola, Antonia, and Noe were undocumented.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Growing up in Mexico, their parents had not been able to stay in school because they had to begin work at a young age to support their families. They wanted their children to have different opportunities\u2014to go to school. Together with three other undocumented families, they made the risky choice to sue the Tyler Independent School District. The case wound its way through the courts, ultimately reaching the Supreme Court in Plyler v. Doe<\/em>. Reasoning that school was an important public benefit and that undocumented children could very well become U.S. citizens, the Court ruled that undocumented children were entitled to free public education, the same as lawfully present children. Alfredo and his siblings could go back to school.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Alfredo, Faviola, and Antonia all went on to graduate from John Tyler High School. Alfredo became a shipping foreman at a grocery chain, Faviola a customer service representative for an insurance company, and Antonia found work at a bank. They have families of their own and own homes. And of the four formerly undocumented Lopez children, two of them have become citizens while the other two have green cards.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Without an education, the lives of the Lopez children might have turned out very differently. Plyler<\/em> has undoubtedly benefitted millions of undocumented students by giving them the opportunity to go to school. However, recent legal developments have threatened the stability of the Plyler<\/em> decision. The Supreme Court\u2019s landmark decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women\u2019s Health Organization<\/em> has revived calls to overturn Plyler<\/em>. While Plyler<\/em> was not a substantive due process case, unlike Dobbs<\/em>, there are concerns that the Court would decline to protect the right of undocumented children to public education because, like abortion, this right is not explicitly protected in the Constitution. Accordingly, opponents of Plyler<\/em> spoke out after the Dobbs<\/em> decision was leaked about how they would like to see the Supreme Court overturn this longstanding precedent next.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Overturning Plyler<\/em> would be catastrophic to the millions of undocumented children currently present in the United States. Public education is one of the most vital benefits the government provides. There is no guarantee that an undocumented immigrant will ever be deported, and they could even one day become citizens. Therefore, from an ethical and practical perspective, Plyler<\/em> must be sustained because it ensures equal opportunity for all children and that every child, no matter their status, can live a prosperous and productive life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n This Note demonstrates how Plyler<\/em> can survive the post-Dobbs<\/em> landscape and preserve undocumented children\u2019s access to public education. Part I describes the Court\u2019s holding in Plyler v. Doe<\/em> and subsequent challenges to the decision in the following years. Part II proposes multiple avenues to strengthen the Court\u2019s original reasoning\u2014under a traditional equal protection framework, substantive due process framework, or immigration preemption principles announced thirty years after the Plyler<\/em> decision\u2014to better support the holding that undocumented children cannot be denied access to public education.<\/p>\n\n\n\n