In this case its about people who are here without

This preview shows page 3 - 5 out of 6 pages.

In this case, it’s about people who are here without documentation. Specifically, the law said public schools’ districts don’t have to allow children entry into their schools if they are here unlawfully unless they pay. There were the idea public school districts could allow undocumented students, but they would have to pay for it as if it was a private education rather than a public education. The reality of the vast majority of the children wouldn’t be able to pay. The effect would be they would no longer be in those schools – or, likely, any schools for that matter. This is a new argument we haven’t seen before in the immigration law landscape.
o ISSUE = Whether Texas’ denial of free public education to undocumented children violated the 14 th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. Does the Equal Protection apply to immigrants who are here unlawfully? o ANALYSIS AND HOLDING = Does Equal Protection even apply to undocumented persons? (this is a new question that has not come up before) = Courts say yes saying the equal protection clause does apply to undocumented children in the realm of education, citing Yick Wo when making the decision. Courts rejected the argument by Texas that the 14 th Amendment is limited to only those persons who are lawfully present. o This is the argument the state of Texas – Texas government – made. o SCOTUS makes this decision by looking at the plain language of the 14 th Amendment. SOCTUS indicates the 14 th Amendment says it applies to “all persons” and doesn’t limit it only those who are here lawfully. Dissent disagrees that the 14 th Amendment applies to undocumented persons. o Dissent disagrees with the interpretation of the 14 th Amendment. o They said if the 14 th Amendment applied to undocumented people, then it wouldn’t make any sense. The 14 th Amendment is about who was here and, thus, on U.S. soil lawfully. Holding Yes, the equal protection rights of the undocumented children have been violated because the state cannot show that the law “further substantial state interests.” SOCTUS language of “substantial state interest” is not as high of strict scrutiny – compelling state interest – and also not as low as rational basis – legitimate state interest. Arguably, SOCTUS is articulating a new test that, when looking at undocumented children and public education, there may be an intermediate level of scrutiny in between strict scrutiny and rational basis. Has the Equal Protection Clause been violated in this case? = In order to do this, the court has to do the following 2 things: (1) Court articulated the correct rule/standard to apply in this case, which is as follows: o Undocumented persons are not a “suspect class”. Because they aren’t a suspect class, SCOTUS won’t require the government of Texas to show a compelling state interest to discriminate against them. Example = Texas legislature had said no children who are of Mexican ancestry can have public education, then this would trigger strict scrutiny – the highest level of scrutiny and the government having to overcome – because here, you have discrimination on the basis of race.

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture