Plyler v. Doe (1982) – The Supreme Court’s Betrayal of State Sovereignty

In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a narrow 5–4 decision, ruled that states must provide free public education to children of illegal aliens. This was a direct overreach — education is not a federal power under the Constitution. The Tenth Amendment leaves it to the states.

The Court twisted the Equal Protection Clause — written to protect freed slaves — into a tool for granting taxpayer-funded benefits to foreign nationals here illegally, creating an unfunded federal mandate.

The Vote:

Majority (5 – Forced states to educate illegal aliens):

- William Brennan (Eisenhower – liberal)

- Thurgood Marshall (LBJ – liberal)

- Harry Blackmun (Nixon – drifted left)

- John Paul Stevens (Ford – liberal)

- Lewis Powell (Nixon – swing)

Dissent (4 – Opposed the ruling):

- Warren Burger, Chief Justice (Nixon)

- William Rehnquist (Nixon)

- Sandra Day O’Connor (Reagan – joined later, agreed with dissent)

- Byron White (Kennedy – conservative Democrat)

What They Warned:

“The Constitution does not impose upon the States an obligation to subsidize illegal conduct.” — Justice Rehnquist

“This decision creates a constitutional right to education for those not even lawfully present in the country.” — Chief Justice Burger

Why It Matters:

This decision rewrote the meaning of “jurisdiction” in the 14th Amendment, burdened taxpayers, rewarded illegal entry, and undermined state sovereignty.

Bottom Line:

Plyler v. Doe is bad law — and it’s still binding. It’s time for the states to challenge it and take back control of their schools.

Plyler v. Doe - (with Supreme Court Precedent)

By Jonathan Dady • August 8, 2025

This brief explains why Plyler v. Doe (1982) was constitutionally invalid and why Missouri (and other states) can reject it under the Tenth Amendment and the anti‑commandeering doctrine.

I. INTRODUCTION

In 1982, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Plyler v. Doe that the state of Texas could not deny public education to children unlawfully present in the United States. This decision was based on the Court’s interpretation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This brief asserts that Plyler v. Doe is void on constitutional grounds and should be formally challenged by any state wishing to restore lawful jurisdictional boundaries and reassert the meaning of federalism under the U.S. Constitution.

II. LACK OF ENUMERATED POWER: EDUCATION IS NOT A FEDERAL FUNCTION

Under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress is granted a limited set of powers. Education is not listed. There is no clause or amendment that grants Congress — or by extension, the federal judiciary — any authority over public education.

Therefore, education remains a state matter by default. Federal courts cannot create powers that the Constitution does not grant.

III. THE TENTH AMENDMENT BARS FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN STATE EDUCATION POLICY

The Tenth Amendment reinforces this structural limit:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Because education is not a delegated power, it belongs exclusively to the states. The Supreme Court had no lawful authority to interfere in Texas’s internal educational policy — regardless of the alleged equal protection claims.

III‑A. SUPREME COURT PRECEDENT AFFIRMING STATE AUTHORITY TO REFUSE FEDERAL OVERREACH

Even if Plyler v. Doe were assumed to be binding precedent, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that the federal government cannot commandeer state governments to enforce unconstitutional policies. This principle, known as the anti‑commandeering doctrine, is rooted in the Tenth Amendment and applies directly to Missouri’s right to reject Plyler.

Key Cases:

1) New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992)

Holding: Congress cannot compel states to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.

Relevance: If Congress cannot force Missouri to implement federal policy, the Supreme Court cannot force Missouri to comply with an unconstitutional education mandate.

2) Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997)

Holding: The federal government cannot compel state officers to enforce federal law.

Relevance: Missouri school officials and state agencies cannot be forced to act as agents of an unconstitutional judicial decision.

3) Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)

Holding: The federal government cannot prohibit states from repealing or refusing to enforce their own laws.

Relevance: Even if Congress passed a law codifying Plyler (which it has not), Missouri could repeal or refuse to enforce any corresponding state law or policy.

4) NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012)

Holding: The federal government cannot coerce states into compliance by threatening unrelated funding.

Relevance: Missouri cannot be lawfully threatened with loss of unrelated federal funds for refusing to comply with Plyler.

5) Ex parte Young, 209 U.S. 123 (1908)

Holding: An unconstitutional enactment is inoperative as though it had never been passed.

Relevance: Missouri is entitled to treat Plyler as null and void, directing state officials not to enforce it.

Conclusion from precedent: The Court’s own rulings establish that Missouri has both the authority and the duty to reject Plyler v. Doe as unconstitutional. The anti‑commandeering doctrine shields the state from federal compulsion and empowers it to act in defense of its constitutional sovereignty.

IV. THE SUPREME COURT HAD NO JURISDICTION IN PLYLER

Jurisdiction is the first and most fundamental question any court must answer. But in Plyler, the Court:

- Ignored the absence of federal authority over education,

- Stretched the 14th Amendment beyond its original meaning,

- Implied that illegal aliens were entitled to taxpayer‑funded services without legal status or consent of the governed.

This was not interpretation. It was usurpation.

The Constitution does not give illegal aliens the same access to state‑administered public benefits as citizens and lawful residents. It does not authorize the Court to override state legislatures absent clear federal law — which did not exist here.

V. TEXAS FAILED TO ASSERT SOVEREIGNTY AND FORFEITED THE STRONGEST DEFENSE

The legal team representing Texas never asserted the jurisdictional challenge they should have. They failed to raise the Tenth Amendment. They failed to point out that the federal judiciary was acting outside the scope of its lawful authority.

This was a monumental error — and one that opened the door for a destructive precedent to take root.

VI. 43 YEARS OF SILENCE: A SHAMEFUL STAIN ON THE STATES

Since Plyler was decided, no state has directly challenged its constitutionality. Not one. That includes states suffering massive budget deficits, school overcrowding, and criminal exploitation resulting from illegal immigration.

This is inexcusable. The Constitution doesn’t enforce itself. If the states do not defend their powers, they are complicit in their own destruction.

VII. CONCLUSION: PLYLER IS VOID — AND STATES CAN SAY SO

Plyler v. Doe is:

- Constitutionally invalid under Article I, Section 8,

- Barred by the Tenth Amendment, and

- Rendered illegitimate by the lack of jurisdiction.

No law requires the people or the states to obey an unconstitutional ruling. All it takes is one state — with courage and clarity — to say:

“This ruling was unconstitutional the day it was issued. We will not enforce it.”

Let that state be yours.

Contact: citizensagainsttyranny1776@gmail.com