The Fight for Education Access: Defending Plyler v. DOE in 2025
For decades, despite waves of anti-immigration rhetoric and inflammatory narratives, the classroom has remained one of the few protected spaces for undocumented children, thanks to the landmark 1982 Supreme Court case Plyler V. Doe which affirmed the right of all children, regardless of documentation status, to access free public K-12 education.
This decision recognized a fundamental truth: education is the cornerstone of opportunity in America. It opens doors to economic mobility, civic participation, and the possibility of unlocking a prosperous future, especially for children from low-income backgrounds. And today, a growing number of children depend on those doors remaining open.
In 2023, more than one in four (26%) children in the United States lived in an immigrant family, representing approximately 17.9 million children. The vast majority of these children (86%) are U.S. citizens by birth. As of 2022, approximately 4.4 million U.S.-born children were living in “mixed-status” families, meaning they have at least one undocumented parent. Additionally, an estimated 850,000 children in the U.S. lack legal documentation themselves.
With so many children connected to immigrant communities, the stakes for protecting educational access have never been higher. Yet rather than protecting these children, our current political climate threatens their rights and their futures. These efforts are not without consequence. New research confirms what immigrant communities have long known: anti-immigrant rhetoric and oppressive policies have devastating consequences on children’s mental health, development, educational engagement, and overall well-being. For example, a 2023 study found that over 60% of teachers report that immigration enforcement negatively affects immigrant students’ academic performance, highlighting how fear and instability undermine learning, attendance, and school engagement.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of harm, some politicians are taking action to dismantle protections that have upheld immigrant children’s right to education. In 2025, several state legislatures introduced bills that directly challenge Plyler v. Doe, seeking to restrict access to public K–12 education based on documentation status. While some of these proposals have failed, others remain in the legislative pipeline, and a few have gained momentum and pose serious legal concerns. At the same time, a number of states have introduced protective policies aimed at affirming the rights of immigrant students.
Summary of Anti-Immigrant Legislation in 2025
Legislative Cycle
Data Collection and Reporting
A growing trend within state legislatures involves using data collection and reporting to lay the groundwork for challenging Plyler v. Doe. These bills focus on collecting and reporting immigration data under the guise of fiscal accountability. But beneath the surface, they signal a potentially dangerous shift from providing equal public services to justifying future exclusion based on legal status. They additionally pose a large bureaucratic burden to states and districts, requiring systems, personnel, and procedures for data collection that do not currently exist. None of these bills come with funding to support this mandate.
This legislative cycle we identified three states, Louisiana, Texas, and Ohio, that introduced data collection and reporting legislation.
Louisiana SB NO 100 (Status: Enacted) requires a wide range of state agencies (e.g., the Louisiana Department of Health, Department of Education, Office of Motor Vehicles, Governor’s Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness, Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Department of Children and Family Services, Department of Revenue, and Louisiana higher education institutions) to identify legal immigration status of all individuals receiving services or benefits,, differentiate between those who are undocumented and unaccompanied minors, and track and calculate the total cost of the services provided to them. Each agency is required to submit an annual report to the governor, the attorney general, and the legislature. The report must include the total number of individuals receiving state services, categorized by legal status and a summary of actions taken to comply with federal immigration law in fulfilling these obligations. State funds may be withheld from any agency that fails to comply. The implementation of this law is contingent upon the legislature appropriating funds for the implementation of this chapter (e.g., data collection, status verification, reporting systems).
Texas HB 4886 (Status: Failed) would have required Texas public school districts and open-enrollment charter schools to add a question about a student’s citizenship or immigration status to enrollment forms. It also would have mandated annual reporting on the number of students without legal status, the cost of their education, and any additional services they required, such as special education, English language support, or academic interventions.
Ohio HB 42 (Status: In House) would require state agencies, including the Attorney General’s office and the Department of Education and Workforce, to collect and annually report individuals’ citizenship or immigration status. Specifically, the bill requires the Department of Education and Workforce to collect data on students’ legal status, including the number who are U.S. citizens, those lawfully present with specific immigration statuses, and those who are not lawfully present in the country. Immigration status data would be incorporated with other student-level data indicators, such as graduation and dropout rates. This would allow for disaggregation of outcomes by citizenship or immigration status.
Proof of Status Upon Enrollment
Across the country, another wave of proposed state legislation is seeking to require proof of documentation status upon public school enrollment for students. Some states are not only considering requiring proof of documentation status for enrollment, but also allowing schools to deny undocumented students access to free public education by imposing tuition requirements, which would pose a direct challenge to Plyler v. Doe. Additionally, bills requiring information on students’ documentation status as a condition of school enrollment would likely scare many families, particularly “mixed status” families, and lead them to avoid the public education system altogether. This would deny children, including U.S. citizens and non-citizens alike, access to education, even where the state is not directly challenging students’ rights under Plyler.
This legislative cycle we saw two states, Oklahoma and Tennessee, introduce proof of status bills.
Tennessee HB 793 – SB 836 (Status: Failed) would have required that students seeking enrollment to provide documentation proving they are either U.S. citizens, in the process of obtaining citizenship, or have legal immigration or visa status. If neither the student nor their guardian can provide this documentation and has exhausted all appeals, the school may choose not to enroll the student without charging tuition. Tuition would have been set annually, but was required to be, at minimum, equivalent to the per-pupil funding for the LEA for the respective school year. If the bill had passed, it would not only have collected data, but also permitted school districts to exclude certain groups of students from receiving any public education or education services, making it a direct challenge to Plyler v. Doe.
Oklahoma HB 1671 (Status: In house) would require parents or guardians to provide proof of a child’s U.S. citizenship or legal immigration status upon public school enrollment. School districts must report the number of enrolled students who lack this documentation to the State Department of Education. However, the bill explicitly states that it cannot be used to deny students access to education or record individual immigration statuses beyond noting missing documentation.
Even with these limitations, requiring schools to collect and report students’ immigration status sets troubling precedent. History shows that data collection related to immigration status even when framed as neutral can be the first step toward more exclusionary policies. It risks fueling fear among families, eroding trust in public institutions, and paving the way for hyper-surveillance.
Protections for Undocumented Students
Given the harsh anti-immigrant tone of the current political climate, some states and localities are proactively working to protect immigrant students by enacting policies that prohibit a child from being denied access to public education and limit immigration enforcement activities on school campuses. By limiting immigration enforcement in schools and affirming students’ rights to education, these policies model how education systems can protect and support student well-being.
Plyler Protection
Illinois HB3247 (Status: Signed Governor) ensures that no student can be denied access to a free public education based on their or their family’s immigration or citizenship status. It prohibits schools from collecting or sharing immigration data and requires schools to establish clear protocols for law enforcement on school grounds. Now that it is signed, it will codify protections aligned with the Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court ruling into state law.
Sanctuary Policies
California SB 48 (Status: In Senate) would restrict immigration enforcement actions on school campuses by prohibiting school districts, county offices of education, and charter schools from allowing immigration authorities to access school areas, question students, or conduct searches without a valid judicial warrant or court order. The bill would require schools to verify such warrants, notify administrators promptly, and deny access if no valid warrant is presented. It would also prohibit sharing any student or staff educational records with immigration authorities without a valid warrant. The Attorney General would also be tasked with publishing model policies to guide schools.
Conclusion
Legislation that threatens Plyler isn’t just a policy debate, it’s a direct threat to the fundamental rights of every child to access education. While some of these anti-immigrant bills have been stopped for now, their mere introduction normalizes the dangerous idea that immigration status should determine whether a child can attend school. These policy proposals create fear and confusion in school communities and, if enacted, would set a reckless precedent by allowing public schools to turn a child away because of their documentation status, causing devastating harm to the wellbeing of undocumented children and children born in the United States to immigrant families. We cannot remain silent. Failure to act compromises the integrity of public education itself. No child should be denied the opportunity to learn. To learn more about what you can do to support undocumented students, check out the National Immigration Law Center’s campaign Education4All.
Meet The Author
Jazmin Flores Peña
Senior Manager of Policy and Government Relations
