As American lawmakers grapple with the ever-contentious subject of immigration, new policies addressing educational access for undocumented immigrants continue to be put forth. One notable piece of proposed legislation related to this topic is the “Tennessee Reduction of Unlawful Migrant Placement Act” or the “TRUMP Act,” a bill that traces back to Tennessee State Representative Gino Bulso. Notably, this bill denies the right to free public education for children who are not “legally residing” in the state but attend school in the county that they live in. If passed, the act would require the legal guardians of these children to pay tuition equivalent to the fees imposed upon students who attend the relevant public school but live outside of the county incorporated by the school district. 

In considering the TRUMP Act, we can first examine the legality of the act’s proposed policy by looking at existing legislation regarding the imposition of tuition fees in Tennessee public schools. In particular, in Tennessee, “no fees or tuitions shall be required of any student as a condition to attending the public school or using its equipment while receiving educational training” ( Tenn. Code Ann. § 49-2-110(c)). This is further reinforced by the Tennessee Constitution, which codifies that “[t]he General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance, support and eligibility standards of a system of free public schools” (emphasis added). In just these two instances, Tennessee has unequivocally affirmed the right to free public education for students in the state. Accordingly, then, the imposition of tuition fees in any way that impedes access to the education fundamentally guaranteed by Tennessee legislation is in direct opposition with the legal protections afforded to the state’s public school students. 

However, it is not sufficient to just note that the proposed enforcement of tuition fees in Tennessee violates, in general, the right to free public education for these Tennessee public school students. By the discriminatory nature of the TRUMP Act (i.e., the imposition of tuition fees for only a certain group), its impact reaches beyond this simple violation and infringes upon the constitutional right to equal protection for illegal residents. In working to understand the questionable constitutionality of this act and, particularly, its relation to the Equal Protection Clause, we can turn to the landmark Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe (1982). This case traces back to a 1975 Texas statute prohibiting the use of state funds for the education of students not “legally admitted” into the country. In response to this law, a class action lawsuit was filed on account of the “illegal alien” Mexican children that had been excluded from attending public schools in Texas in accordance with the Texas statute and school board policy.

 The Court, in a 5-4 decision, sided with the children, asserting that Texas did not have a right to deny free education to minors who are illegal aliens living in the state and that the 1975 statute was unconstitutional. The Court specifically invoked the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, noting that, in prior rulings , it had extended the protections of the Fourteenth Amendment beyond U.S. citizens to include anyone that fell within the “jurisdiction” or the boundaries of a State. This means that immigration status cannot be used in determining whether or not a resident of the United States is entitled to the rights enumerated in the Equal Protection Clause. Thus, people who are residing—albeit illegally—in the U.S. are still entitled to this same legal protection as U.S. citizens. 

With respect to the TRUMP Act, this means that the undocumented children, simply by nature of their residence in Tennessee, are entitled to attend public schools just like citizen children under the Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection Clause. However, the TRUMP act imposes disparate treatment towards undocumented immigrant youth via the discriminatory language of its proposed policies. Specifically, the act proposes that only families of undocumented immigrant children or, to use the exact wording, “[t]he parent, guardian, or legal custodian of a pupil who is not lawfully residing in this state” be charged with tuition to attend a public school within the student’s district. In other words, by targeting a specific class of residents (i.e., illegal immigrants) which are included in the jurisdiction of a state, the act creates an inequality in the application of the law. Thus, ultimately, the TRUMP Act violates fundamental constitutional protections, as exemplified in Plyler v. Doe, endowed to undocumented immigrants navigating the public education system within the United States. 

Beyond discussions of educational access and the public education system, if passed, the TRUMP Act will have other repercussions for the rights endowed to illegal immigrants residing in Tennessee. One of the tactics the bill uses to exclude children of illegal immigrants from the educational protections enumerated for residents of Tennessee—and reinforced by federal law—is a proposed change in the definition of “resident” itself. Specifically, the bill would allow for the addition of a subsection in the Tennessee code delineating that “resident [or Resident] of the state” or “citizen [or Citizen] of this state” only refers to “citizens of the United States and aliens lawfully present in this state.” The bill later goes on to stipulate that “lawfully present” refers to the ability to provide two forms of government ID, which include a valid Tennessee driver’s license, a U.S. passport, and several other forms enumerated in the act.  

This proposed change in definition is later used to inform what exactly signifies “lawfully residing” in the bill’s language towards, once again, the immigration status of parents of Tennessee school children. Although this section focuses, specifically, on educational access for illegal immigrants, this is just one protection federally endowed to illegal immigrants. As affirmed in Plyler v. Doe, fundamental constitutional rights, such as any issues that fall under the right to equal protection, are extended to all persons within the jurisdiction of the court, regardless of the nature of their residence within the U.S. This means that the TRUMP Act finds itself not just in conflict with the federal rulings regarding educational access for undocumented residents but also with the rights endowed to illegal immigrants as a whole. Furthermore, in the Plyler decision, although the Court acknowledged that education is not a “fundamental right” for U.S. citizens, it also points to the critical importance of education in maintaining a well-functioning society and system of government. In accordance with this logic, ensuring educational opportunities for all children residing in the U.S. becomes crucial for the betterment of the country. Conversely, removing access to education only serves to harm both the opportunities available to the afflicted children—in this case, illegal immigrant children—and, on a broader scale, the nation. Thus, the TRUMP Act constitutes not only a comprehensive attack on the educational protections extended to illegal immigrant children but, also, an attack on the functionality of the U.S. as a whole. Accordingly, to protect both the constitutional rights of undocumented immigrants and the broader workings of American society, the TRUMP Act must not be passed into law.