457 U.S. 202 (1982)
Since the late 19th century the United States has restricted immigration into this country.1 Unsanctioned entry is a crime and those who enter unlawfully are subject to deportation, yet a substantial number of persons have succeeded in unlawfully entering and now live within various States including Texas.2
In May 1975 the Texas Legislature revised its education laws to withhold state funds from local school districts for the education of children not legally admitted into the United States.3 The revision also authorized local districts to deny enrollment to such children under Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.031.4
In September 1977 a class action was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on behalf of school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Smith County who could not establish legal admission.5 The suit challenged their exclusion from the Tyler Independent School District schools, and the State of Texas intervened as a defendant.6
After certifying a class of all undocumented school-age children of Mexican origin in the district, the court held an extensive hearing in December 1977.7 It found that the statute had neither the purpose nor effect of keeping illegal aliens out of Texas, that enrollment increases stemmed primarily from legal residents, and that barring undocumented children would save money but would not necessarily improve education quality.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the injunction.8 During 1978 and 1979 additional suits were filed in other Texas districts.9 The Judicial Panel on Multi-district Litigation consolidated them in the Southern District of Texas.10 After a hearing the district court held the statute violated equal protection, the Court of Appeals summarily affirmed, and the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction and consolidated the cases.11
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?12
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to all persons within a state's jurisdiction, including undocumented aliens.13 It directs that all persons similarly circumstanced shall be treated alike.14 A state classification that imposes a lifetime hardship on a discrete class of children not accountable for their status must further some substantial goal of the state to survive scrutiny even under a rational basis standard adjusted for the importance of education.15
No. The Texas statute withholds state funds and authorizes denial of enrollment under Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 21.031 to undocumented school-age children of Mexican origin in the Tyler Independent School District and the consolidated cases.16 The District Court found that the statute had neither the purpose nor effect of keeping illegal aliens out of Texas.17 It also found that barring such children would save money but would not necessarily improve education quality because enrollment increases stemmed primarily from legal residents.18
The classification targets children who cannot control their parents' conduct or their own status.19 It creates a permanent subclass of illiterates who will remain in the country indefinitely.20 The record shows no substantial state interest in fiscal integrity or deterrence is advanced.21 Undocumented children are basically indistinguishable from legal residents in educational needs, and the net economic impact does not justify exclusion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the injunctions in both the Eastern District class action and the multi-district litigation, confirming that the discrimination lacks a rational basis tied to any legitimate goal.22
Texas may not deny undocumented school-age children the free public education provided to citizens and legally admitted aliens, as the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Related opinions on this issue
Justice Marshall joined the Court opinion without retreating from his dissenting view in San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez.23 He continues to believe that an individual's interest in education is fundamental.24 This view is amply supported by the unique status accorded public education by our society and by the close relationship between education and some of our most basic constitutional values.25
The facts of these cases demonstrate the wisdom of rejecting a rigidified approach to equal protection analysis.26 An approach that allows for varying levels of scrutiny depending upon the constitutional and societal importance of the interest adversely affected is preferable.27 A class-based denial of public education is utterly incompatible with the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.28
Justice Blackmun joined the opinion and judgment of the Court.29 He emphasized that when a state provides education to some children and denies it to others it immediately creates class distinctions of a type fundamentally inconsistent with the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause.30 Children denied an education are placed at a permanent and insurmountable competitive disadvantage.31
An uneducated child is denied even the opportunity to achieve.32 When those children are members of an identifiable group the group is converted into a discrete underclass through the state's action.33 Classifications involving the complete denial of education strike at the heart of equal protection values by involving the state in the creation of permanent class distinctions.34
The extraordinary nature of the interest requires the state to offer more than a rational basis for its classification.35
Justice Powell joined the opinion of the Court and wrote separately to emphasize the unique character of the cases.36 The classification severely disadvantages children who are the victims of a combination of circumstances.37 Access from Mexico is readily available and virtually uncontrollable.38
Illegal aliens are attracted by employment opportunities.39 The appellee children are innocent.40 They can affect neither their parents' conduct nor their own status.41
The classification deprives a group of children of the opportunity for education afforded all other children simply because they have been assigned a legal status due to a violation of law by their parents.42 These children have been singled out for a lifelong penalty and stigma.43 A legislative classification that threatens the creation of an underclass of future citizens and residents cannot be reconciled with one of the fundamental purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.44
The state's interests must be substantial and the means must bear a fair and substantial relation to those interests.45
Joined by Justices White, Rehnquist, And O’connor
Chief Justice Burger dissented.46 He argued that the Court was improperly acting as Platonic Guardians to remedy perceived failures of the political branches by striking down the statute under the Equal Protection Clause.47 The Constitution does not constitute the Court as Platonic Guardians nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy.48
The Court trespasses on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when it assumes a policymaking role.49 Illegal aliens are not similarly situated to lawful residents for allocation of finite resources.50 The distinction based on federal immigration classifications is rational and constitutional because a state has no obligation to provide benefits to those whose presence is unlawful.51
Justice Rehnquist dissented.52 He contended that a state should not bear the costs of educating children whose illegal presence results from the default of the political branches of the Federal Government.53 A state has no power to prevent unlawful immigration and no power to deport illegal aliens.54
Those powers are reserved exclusively to Congress and the Executive.55 If the Federal Government fails to deport illegal aliens it should bear the burdens of their presence here.56 The classification is rational because illegal aliens have no right to be present and the state may reasonably elect not to provide governmental services at the expense of lawful residents.57