1. Lecture 45 Discrimination IX
Discrimination on Economic Status and Immigration Status

2. This Lecture
Pages
Discrimination based on Economic Status and Immigration Status
San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)
Plyler v. Doe (1982)

3. Economic Status Discrimination
The country once had debtors prisons
However, attitudes started to change
The War on Poverty more programs to assist the poor
Providing counsel to the indigent
But what standard to apply?
Shapiro v. Thompson (1969)
Court strikes down one year state residency requirement for welfare benefits
They seems to apply strict scrutiny but it also implied the right to interstate travel too
This was a fundamental right, but what if a fundamental right not implicated?

4. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez (1973)
Background
Challenge to the Texas educational funding system
It is based on property taxes in the district, so poor areas get less money
The state and federal government would add small additional funding
The disparity was very great between districts, often correlated with race
A lower court said this was discrimination based on economic status
They said children were a suspect class and education was a fundamental right

5. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez- II
Arguments
For San Antonio School District and the State of Texas
Spending per pupil is not a proper measure to use
Education is not a fundamental right as recognized by the Constitution or the Court
Economic status is not a suspect class
The school funding system is rational in it lets local districts to use more of their resources
For Rodriguez and other plaintiffs
The state draws school district boundaries
Education is very important and is a fundamental right
The poor are a suspect class
The proper standard is strict scrutiny

6. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez- III
Powell, J. for a 5-4 Court
He rules that the poor are not a suspect class and there is no strict scrutiny
The right to be educated is not found in the Constitution either implicitly or explicitly
No Equal Protection requirement for equal per pupil spending
The poor are not a suspect class
This law does not discriminate against all poor people in Texas
The proper standard is therefore rational basis
Court finds this formula is rationally related to an legitimate state objective

7. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez- IV
Marshall, J. dissenting
Dissents also by Brennan and White, JJ.
He thinks everyone has the right to an equal start in life
And this means education
Therefore should be subject to strict scrutiny
There is discriminatory treatment from this policy
Note: Many have challenged state funding formulas successfully under state constitutional provisions, but not at the federal level after this case

8. Discrimination based on Alienage
Yick Wo v. Hopkins (1886)
Resident aliens entitled to Equal Protection
Graham v. Richardson (1971)
Non-citizens are a suspect class
Nyquist v. Mauclet (1977)
Resident aliens cannot be denied state higher education financial aid
Foley v. Connelie (1978)
Not a violation to have a policy to deny aliens a job in law enforcement

9. Plyler v. Doe (1982) Background
Texas passes a law to deny education to the children of those not in the country legally by denying the districts state funds for them
They can also deny enrollment to undocumented children
Lawsuit filed in Tyler against school that denied children admission who could not prove their citizenship status

10. Plyler v. Doe- II Arguments For Texas For Doe
Education is not a fundamental right, thus law subject to rational basis
This is a resource issue for Texas taxpayers
Texas has an interest in discouraging illegal immigration
For Doe
Equal Protection Clause applies to undocumented children
San Antonio involved discriminatory education resources, this a complete denial
This is not a good means to stop illegal immigration

11. Plyler v. Doe- III Brennan, J. for a 5-4 Court
Powell, J. joins in this opinion unlike San Antonio
Marshall concurs to echo his dissent in San Antonio
Undocumented children are people “in any ordinary sense of the term”
Texas justification for the law is insufficient
They see the opposite effect
This was directed against children in a discriminatory manner
This is a total denial of education
This law furthers no substantial state interest
This seems to be its own intermediate scrutiny standard
But for undocumented immigrants, this standard applies only to children

12. Plyler v. Doe- IV
Burger, C.J. joined by White, Rehnquist, and O’Connor, JJ. dissenting
They would leave this to the political process
Court is seeking to do Congress job here
They don’t agree with the policy per se but think it should be left to the legislatures

13. Next Lecture Pages 706-716 State Action Requirement
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority (1961)
Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis (1972)