Undocumented students can attend public schools for free thanks to the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe, which held that denying children an education based on immigration status violates the Constitution’s equal protection clause.
That ruling remains binding federal law, even as the Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind the Project 2025 policy playbook shaping much of President Donald Trump’s agenda, published a policy document on Feb. 17 calling on states to intentionally enact laws or rules restricting free public education for undocumented students and calling on the highest court to overturn the landmark decision.
In February 2024, the Heritage Foundation published a brief recommending that states challenge the Plyler decision. Since Trump’s reelection win in November 2024, at least three states have proposed action to limit undocumented students’ access to a free, public education, while similar efforts in four other states have failed, according to an Education Week analysis.
The new Heritage Foundation policy document reiterates the organization’s claims from 2024—that undocumented students are an economic burden on schools—and now includes model legislation state leaders can use to provoke a legal challenge to Plyler.
“It is fiscal negligence on the part of state governments that their taxpayers don’t know how much they’re spending on educating children who aren’t supposed to be in the country. Collect the data, calculate the costs, and make informed policy decisions,” said Lora Ries, director of the Heritage Foundation’s border security and immigration center, and author of the new policy document, in a statement.
But unless and until the U.S. Supreme Court overturns the ruling, Plyler v. Doe remains the law nationwide.
Plyler remains federal law
Under the Plyler decision, states cannot deny free public K-12 education to children based on immigration status. For that reason, school districts must not collect or require proof of citizenship during enrollment.
Ohio, New Jersey, and Tennessee have recently proposed actions that would require schools to collect immigration-related information or charge tuition to undocumented families. None has taken effect, and no state has successfully challenged Plyler’s legal precedent in its more than 40-year history.
State laws challenging Plyler in California and Alabama in 1994 and 2011, respectively, were struck down before implementation, said Thomas A. Saenz, the president and general counsel of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF, which litigated the original Plyler v. Doe case.
Saenz noted that Plyler policy is incorporated into federal statute, making it difficult for challenges to succeed.
Additionally, an EdWeek analysis has found that since Trump’s reelection, at least two states have enacted protections of undocumented students’ access to a free, public education, and at least one state is currently proposing to protect that right.
Ries said it would ultimately be up to states on whether they charge tuition of undocumented students.
What schools need to know
The Heritage Foundation’s policy document arrives as schools serving immigrant students are grappling with heightened immigration-enforcement activity that educators say disrupts learning and harms students’ emotional well-being.
Since the Trump administration rescinded policies limiting immigration-enforcement actions near schools—and rolled back federal guidance outlining protections for English learners and immigrant students last year—educators are increasingly reporting the need to address families’ fears and anxieties while safeguarding students’ access to education.
For Saenz, it’s critical that school leaders understand that Plyler remains the law and share such messaging with families to avoid parents hesitating to enroll their children.
He added that there have been instances where schools have violated students’ rights and not enrolled them due to their immigration status. While those violations have been reversed, he wants schools to make sure they don’t happen in the first place.
“The law has not changed. Nothing has changed with respect to this issue whatsoever,” he added.
