Republican lawmakers in Tennessee have decided to pause a proposed bill that sought to challenge the constitutional right allowing children to attend public schools regardless of their immigration status. With the legislative session nearing its end, the lawmakers are now seeking guidance from U.S. officials about whether the bill could risk the state’s federal education funding.
House Majority Leader William Lamberth, who sponsors the bill, announced this strategic pause. This decreases the likelihood of the bill’s passage this year as lawmakers anticipate adjourning soon. The Tennessee Journal was the first to highlight Lamberth’s decision.
This year, hundreds of children have gathered at the Tennessee Capitol to oppose the bill, which targets the protection established by the landmark 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe. This decision invalidated a Texas law that sought to deny enrollment to students not “legally admitted” into the country. The Republican-controlled Tennessee Senate has already passed a version of the bill that requires proof of legal residence for enrollment in public K-12 schools. This version also gives school districts the option to either deny enrollment to undocumented students or charge them tuition. The House version, which remains stalled in a subcommittee, differs by allowing but not requiring schools to check immigration status.
Lamberth emphasized Tennessee’s receipt of approximately $1.1 billion in federal education funds annually. He expressed confidence that the Trump Administration would not withhold these funds due to the passage of the bill. However, to ensure that no federal taxpayer dollars are endangered, the lawmakers are proceeding with caution.
A growing number of conservative leaders, including those from The Heritage Foundation, are advocating for states to challenge the Plyler v. Doe decision. Tennessee’s Republican lawmakers have been at the forefront of this effort, which directly contradicts Supreme Court precedent. Supporters of the bill have focused primarily on the financial implications for states educating undocumented children, though it remains unclear if the bill would yield any financial savings.
Opposition to the bill has been emotional, with students expressing distress in front of legislative committees over the potential removal of classmates and concerns about who might be affected next. Some advocacy groups have welcomed the recent pause but remain cautious, noting the bill isn’t officially dead until the legislative session ends.
Lisa Sherman Luna, executive director of the Tennessee Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition, emphasized the significant bipartisan opposition faced by the lawmakers. This targeted approach to denying children an education has been widely criticized across the state.
Supporters of the bill frequently cite the narrow 5-4 Supreme Court vote that decided Plyler in 1982, suggesting that the current Supreme Court might overturn the precedent, similar to its recent decision to overturn the right to abortion.
