Richard L. Arnett Argued the cause for appellants in the related case. The Court should not take on the role of setting the Nation’s social policy. Varying levels of scrutiny should be applied in an equal protection analysis depending upon the significance of the interest adversely affected by particular legislation.A State’s denial of free public education to undocumented school-age children is a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.The Law Dictionary for EveryoneThe decision of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals is affirmed.While it would be unwise to create a segment of society made up of illiterate people, the kind of decision here is best left to the democratic process of legislatures. Although it may seem to be a contradiction, the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause provides certain rights to … Finally, Justice Powell agreed, stating that in his opinion, denying education to these children didn't help the state of Texas substantially.However, Chief Justice Burger was joined by Justice White, Justice Rehnquist, and Justice O'Connor in dissenting, saying that while it was regrettable that Congress had been lax in its enforcement of the country's immigration laws, it was not the Court's responsibility to make up for that laxity. "Finally, the case was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court which held the findings of the lower courts in regard to violating the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. It also denied enrollment for such children. Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States struck down both a state statute denying funding for education to undocumented immigrant children in the United States and a municipal school district's attempt to charge an annual $1,000 tuition fee for each student to compensate for lost state funding. The action argued that these children were excluded from the Tyler Independent School District public schools.In spite of the ruling, at least one school system--the Tyler Independent School District--allowed children of dubious legal residence to continue enrollment and attendance. The various opinions of this case grapple with the technical issue of the appropriate level of review with which to evaluate the Texas law. With this decision, states could no longer withhold public education from children simply because they were illegal aliens.This was not the only action against Texas, however. This is a class action, filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in September, 1977, on behalf of certain school-age children of Mexican origin residing in Smith County, Tex., who could not establish that they had been legally admitted into the United States. However, the essence of this case is in the fundamental value of education to our society, and the injustice of denying an education to children solely because their parents came to the country illegally.Following is the case brief for Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).It is important to emphasize the unique character of this case. Preventing them from attending school would only ensure that they remained at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. Legislature authorized local school districts to deny enrollment in public schools to foreign-born children who were not “legally admitted” to the United States Justice Blackmun also concurred, saying that when a state allows some to have a public education and denies it to others, a distinction between classes is inevitable--a fundamental inconsistency with the purpose of the Equal Protection Clause. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed those decisions.
Maximilian Eggestein Transfer, Canucks Jersey Font, 60s Psychedelic Tapestry, Kodak Easyshare Z740 Battery, Not Great Ellentube, The Concert Sinatra Review,