Republicans say they will still push education based on legal status

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — After weeks of protests and strained debate, Tennessee’s Republican supermajority hit pause on a bill that would have let public K-12 schools deny enrollment to children without legal immigration status. But the lawmakers pushing the measure say they aren’t done.

Republicans across the country had hoped to trigger a lawsuit challenging the law that would bring the issue back to the U.S. Supreme Court, similar to how a state law in Mississippi led to the court overturning federal abortion rights in 2022.

The Supreme Court established the right to an education for all students, regardless of immigration status in a 1982 ruling in Plyler v. Doe.

A nationwide plan

The Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank that wrote the blueprint for the Trump administration’s Project 2025 policies, called on states last year to pass bills challenging Plyler v. Doe.

“Unchecked illegal migration over the past three years has possibly cost the public education system billions of dollars,” The Heritage Foundation wrote in a 2024 brief. “Large influxes of non-English-speaking children also has a negative effect on the classroom.”

Similar arguments concerning the cost of education have played out in state legislatures across the country. While states don’t collect data on the number of students without legal status in the classroom, Republicans have pointed to the rising number of English learners in public schools, although estimates from the advocacy group EdTrust show that the majority of those students are citizens.

Despite the multi-state effort, attempts this year to retry Plyler have all failed. Bills in Texas, Indiana and New Jersey stalled. Oklahoma’s Republican state superintendent put a similar measure before the state legislature, but Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt vowed to block it.

Tennessee’s version came the closest to becoming law. In April, the bill narrowly passed the Senate. Republican state Sen. Bo Watson, who co-sponsored the legislation, argued on the Senate floor that it addressed a financial issue.

“We have been mandated or forced to pay that additional cost without consideration,” Watson said. “[Plyler] was the voice of the court being imposed on the people. This, my friends — this is the voice of the people being exercised through their elected representatives.”

But the bill could have a chilling effect on the state’s economy, too, said Phillip Lovell of the non-profit All for Ed, a national organization that advocates for equal access to education.

“There are estimates that the undocumented community in your state contributes $350 million in taxes. They have a purchasing power of $3.5 billion,” Lovell said, testifying in committee. “The more someone learns, the more they earn and the more taxes they pay. Your spending on education is not just spending, it’s an investment.”

A sudden death

What ultimately held the bill back this year was its own potential financial impact. The Tennessee House was set to vote on the measure when its sponsor, Republican Rep. William Lamberth, pulled it from consideration after a state review found it could have jeopardized more than $1 billion in federal education funding for violating the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

At Lamberth’s request, the state sent a letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, asking how much of the potential $1.1 billion in federal funding would be at risk, but the state did not receive a response by the end of session.

Immigrant rights activists are taking the move as a win.

“To all the children, parents, educators, faith leaders, business owners and everyday Tennesseans who spoke out — your calls, your emails and your presence at the Capitol worked,” said Lisa Sherman Luna, the executive director of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition.

The group helped plan several protests and marches over the course of the legislative session. Every time the bill was heard during session, protesters filled hearing rooms and spilled out into the hallways, carrying signs that read “Education for all” or “I stand with immigrants.”

What’s next for the measure 

The bill isn’t entirely dead. Tennessee Republicans have plans to bring it back next year, depending on how receptive the federal government is to the legislation.

If the measure does make it before the U.S. Supreme Court, advocates worry the outcome could be different from the 1982 decision.

Stella Yarbrough, the legal director of Tennessee’s ACLU, said the court’s conservative majority has a history of reversing court precedent.

“I think that they’re reading the tea leaves correctly,” Yarbrough said. “I think that they are correct that they are going to get a second bite at the apple.”

Despite the nationwide risk, Yarbrough said the ACLU would still pursue a legal challenge if a law like this one passes.

“Even if you think you’re going to lose in the long run, putting off that loss—even for a day, a week, a year—can be meaningful,” Yarbrough said.

Tennessee went before the U.S. Supreme Court in December to defend its ban on gender-affirming care for minors. When that ruling is made, as expected this summer, state Republicans will see if their strategy works with the court’s current makeup.