Mock Trial: Plyler v. Doe

[Victor Sullivan]

Who would you side with and why? Argue for a side!

In May 1975, the Texas state legislature passed a law authorizing school districts to deny enrollment to children who had not been "legally admitted" into the United States. Under this law, Texas school districts could either bar from the schools the children of people who entered illegally or charge them tuition. The Tyler Independent School District in Smith County chose the second option.

Several federal court lawsuits were filed against the Texas law. The first was a class-action suit filed in 1977 by attorneys on behalf of "certain school-age children of Mexican origins residing in Smith County, Texas, who could not establish that they had been legally admitted into the United States." A federal district court ruled in 1977 and again in 1980 that the state law violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. An injunction (court order) barred the state and the Tyler School Board from denying free public schooling to the undocumented immigrant children. A federal appeals court in 1981 agreed with the lower court ruling. The Tyler school board and school superintendent, James Plyler, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The question presented by these cases is 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. The question presented by these cases is 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."

The appellants are on the side of Plyler, who believes that the Texas law does not violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The respondents are on the side of the nameless "Doe", who believes that the Texas law does violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

-Sully

[Phatscotty]

Awesome thread!

[saxitoxin]

#1 - Victor gets 3 bonus points for MOCK TRIAL!

#2 - I had to Bing-Dot-Com the wording of the Equal Protection Clause ...

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Based on "nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws" I would say - in use of the word "person" instead of "citizen" - Texas cannot deny illegal immigrants from enrollment in their schools. However, I'd be open to consider that an illegal immigrant is not within the jurisdiction of Texas, in which case I would reverse my opinion and say they could, if someone could make a compelling argument along those lines.

[thegreekdog]

My first thought was that the equal protection clause clearly applies. My second thought was whether Plyler could argue that the parents were the ones benefiting from the "free" public education.

Anyway, I would argue that the point of the equal protection clause was for just this type of thing.

I will also award VS three internets for mock trial threads.

[Evil Semp]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." In the first post it was said "legally admitted." If the children weren't in the country legally then I don't think the first part of saxi's quote would apply to them. I think the second part about due process would apply because it uses the word person and not citizen.

[thegreekdog]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." In the first post it was said "legally admitted." If the children weren't in the country legally then I don't think the first part of saxi's quote would apply to them. I think the second part about due process would apply because it uses the word person and not citizen.

I understood from the facts that the children were born in the United States. Perhaps not.

[Victor Sullivan]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." In the first post it was said "legally admitted." If the children weren't in the country legally then I don't think the first part of saxi's quote would apply to them. I think the second part about due process would apply because it uses the word person and not citizen.

I understood from the facts that the children were born in the United States. Perhaps not.

The children were not born in the United States. The parents along with the children are illegal immigrants.

-Sully

[saxitoxin]

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

It says "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." In the first post it was said "legally admitted." If the children weren't in the country legally then I don't think the first part of saxi's quote would apply to them. I think the second part about due process would apply because it uses the word person and not citizen.

It seems there are four independent clauses here:

1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
2. no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States
3. nor shall any State No state shall deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law
4. nor shall any State No state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws