Professor Jenny-Brooke Condon on Plyler v. Doe

Professor Jenny-Brooke Condon explores Plyler v. Doe and its enduring lessons about equal protection, constitutional interpretation and the rights of noncitizens. 
 

---

For Constitution Day, Jenny-Brooke Condon, professor of law and director of the Equal Justice Clinic, recommends Plyler v. Doe, the landmark 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision that struck down a Texas law denying undocumented children access to free public education. The court found that the law violated the 14th Amendment's guarantee of equal protection because it created "a permanent subclass of children who would be subjected to a lifetime of hardship and illiteracy through no fault of their own." 

The case stands out for Condon for its lasting impact and for how the court approached the constitutional question. "The impact of the case has been momentous. It has had a profound impact on society by arguably helping to limit poverty, expand opportunity and ensure that we have a pluralistic education system that translates into a pluralistic workforce and democracy," Condon said. 

The case is also significant because of the obstacles the court faced in reaching its decision. At the time, undocumented immigrants were not considered a protected class under the Equal Protection Clause, and the court had previously held that education was not a fundamental right—precedents that could have made it harder for the children challenging the Texas law to prevail. 

"Nevertheless, the court looked beyond those rigid methodologies and didn't allow them to lead to absurd results. It asked questions that are really at the heart of equal protection: Does this law subordinate a vulnerable group? Does it deny access to an important resource or interest, education?" 

By focusing on those questions, Condon thinks the court was able to consider the broader purpose of the 14th Amendment. "The court looked at that holistically and, ultimately, in my view, was able to honor and give meaning to some of the core purposes of the 14th Amendment and the Constitution as a whole." 
The case also offers an important reminder about who the Constitution protects. For Condon, "it reaffirms that the Constitution protects all people, not just citizens." 

While the scope of constitutional rights varies by provision, the Equal Protection Clause applies by its terms to any “person” within the United States, whether they are a citizen or here without immigration status. Although the federal government’s authority to regulate immigration means that it may in many instances treat non-citizens differently than citizens, Plyler shows that constitutional backstops remain essential to ensure that members of our community have access to opportunity and can be treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve. 

The case also shows how the Constitution can address circumstances its framers could not have anticipated. "The Constitution is not a static document that is rooted in a single view that the framers may have had," said Condon. 

The 14th Amendment was written in the aftermath of the Civil War to protect the rights of newly freed Black Americans. Yet in Plyler, the court applied the amendment's broader promise of equal protection to undocumented children—a group the framers may not have specifically envisioned. 

Condon linked that approach to Chief Justice John Marshall's description of the Constitution in McCulloch v. Maryland as a document "intended to endure for ages to come." She said the idea puts "an onus on all of us to think about the Constitution as our own, one that we each shape." 

"We can aspire to create a Constitution that lives up to its highest ideals and endures for ages to come." 

Achieving that vision, according to Condon, requires "brave litigants like the litigants in Plyler, courageous and creative lawyers and jurists who are willing not to be limited by rigid methodologies that may not actually give meaning to the core purposes of the 14th Amendment and the Constitution as a whole."