Immigrant Kids Can Attend School Regardless Of Citizenship Some States Are Challenging This Standard

(MENAFN- The Conversation) All immigrants, regardless of their citizenship status, have the right to attend a public K-12 school in the United States. Schools cannot collect students' immigration status when they enroll. This has been the case since 1982, when the Supreme Court ruled against Texas in the case of Plyler v. Doe.

Republican legislators in several states, including Tennessee, Oklahoma and Ohio, are trying to pass legislation that challenges the Plyler decision. These bills would make it harder, if not impossible, for immigrant children to attend public school.

In the U.S., there are approximately 1.5 million children under the age of 18 who are undocumented immigrants, meaning that they live in the country without legal authorization.

There are likely 600,000 to 850,000 undocumented students enrolled in K-12 schools.

Opposition to Plyler

In 1975, Texas passed legislation that allowed school districts to either charge undocumented students to attend public school or not let them enroll at all.

Seven years later, the Supreme Court ruled that Texas' law violated the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause. The court determined that someone's immigration status“does not establish a sufficient rational basis for denying them benefits that the State affords other residents.”

For the past 44 years, this ruling has ensured that no state can ban undocumented students from attending a public K-12 school, charge them extra fees or discriminate against them in any other way because of their immigration status.

A few times over the past few decades, some states have unsuccessfully tried to make it harder for immigrant children to attend school.

In 1994, California voters passed Proposition 187, a ballot initiative that denied undocumented people the right to receive public services, including a public education. The proposition also required schools to document students' immigration status.

A federal judge ruled in 1998 that the controversial proposition was unconstitutional.

In 2011, Alabama passed legislation that required K-12 public schools to collect students' immigration status.

The Supreme Court ruled in 2012 that Alabama's legislation was illegal. Alabama schools, like all other schools, are not allowed to ask students about their immigration status, as it could be a means of discrimination or intimidation.

A new wave of legislation

The conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation issued a policy document in February 2026 that encouraged all states to challenge the Plyler v. Doe ruling.

Heritage argued that“illegal aliens should not be eligible for federal, state, or local government benefits, including through their children.” It wrote that giving undocumented immigrants these benefits“takes resources from American citizens and lawful immigrants.”

Heritage also published sample legislation that challenges the Plyler ruling and which state legislators could follow when drafting a new bill.

In 2025, at least five states considered legislation that would make it harder for undocumented students to attend K-12 school. None of those measures have become official policy, though some are still being debated in legislatures.

The Tennessee Senate passed a bill in 2025 that allowed school districts to ban undocumented students. In March 2026, the state's House of Representatives passed a similar, watered-down version of the legislation. This bill would require schools to check students' immigration status. The two government chambers are now working to determine next steps on the measure.

In 2025, Ohio legislators introduced a bill that wouldn't ban immigrants from attending school, but it would require schools to report students' immigration status to the state. The state's House Government Oversight Committee is considering the measure.

In January 2025, the Oklahoma Board of Education passed a resolution that would require parents to show their child's citizenship status before enrolling in school. Oklahoma's House of Representatives blocked the resolution four months later.

Similarly, Republican legislators in Idaho introduced a bill in February 2026 that would require public K-12 schools to check students' immigration status. The state's House Education Committee is currently considering the bill.

A bill was also introduced in New Jersey in January 2025 that would charge undocumented students to study at a K-12 school, but the bill did not gain traction.

In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott has talked about challenging the Plyler ruling, as far back as 2022. The state is not currently considering any specific legislation on the issue.

But in March 2026, Mandy Drogin, a campaign director with the conservative think tank Texas Public Policy Foundation, spoke out against Plyler in a U.S. Congressional hearing.

“If states are required to educate illegal immigrant students, they must be allowed to identify the student population's status to fully understand and address the adverse effects of Plyler v. Doe,” Drogin said.

A patchwork higher education landscape

The Plyler decision focused on K-12 schools, not colleges and universities. Undocumented students in some states already face college enrollment and tuition restrictions, particularly when it comes to state schools.

Twenty-five states, including Florida and Texas, require undocumented students to pay higher out-of-state tuition fees for state schools, even if they are Florida residents.

Alabama and South Carolina ban undocumented students from attending state colleges and universities. Undocumented students in Georgia cannot attend certain top public universities, including the University of Georgia and Georgia Tech.

These policies all make it harder for undocumented students to receive a college degree. But the stakes of state legislation that would create new hurdles for immigrant children to attend elementary and secondary school would arguably be much higher.

A fragile right

If undocumented students are not offered a free public education, then students who are applying for asylum, or students whose parents are undocumented, could find that this standard is no longer a guarantee for them as well.

This issue has not received a great deal of media attention, perhaps because states have not yet succeeded in passing any of this legislation.

As an education professor, I believe that any of these state measures, if turned into law, would have significant effects on immigrant families – and on American education more broadly.

It would mean that many young people, including the many who are rapidly losing their legal immigration status under the Trump administration, would no longer be able to receive an education in this country and try to reach their full potential. They also would have less opportunities to contribute to our society.

The universal right to public education in the U.S. has long been taken for granted – but this right, like others, might be more fragile than it seems.

MENAFN23032026000199003603ID1110894988