LISTEN TO THE EPISODE

Louis Freedberg 0:04
Welcome to Education on the Line, a podcast series focused on the latest threats to public education and strategies for confronting them. I'm Louis Freedberg. The Supreme Court's 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision was one of the most consequential in our nation's history, but it is one of few, or should I say, not enough, Americans have heard about. The court ruled that a Texas law that required undocumented students to pay tuition to attend school was unconstitutional. Since then, school districts have been required to admit all students regardless of their immigration status. And that's not just in Texas, but across the country. That decision is now under attack. And a half dozen states are trying to pass legislation that will once again exclude undocumented children from our schools. And just last month, the Heritage Foundation, the far-right organization that drew up Project 2025, which is serving as a blueprint for the Trump administration, launched a formal campaign to get states to pass legislation that once again would require undocumented students to pay tuition. For education leaders, this is no longer a distant legal debate. To help us understand what is at stake and what school leaders should be watching, I'm pleased to welcome Tom Science, president of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which filed the original Plyler v. Doe lawsuit. Tom, thanks for joining us today.
Tom Saenz 1:36
Thank you, Lou.
Louis Freedberg 1:37
Also joining us is Lisa Sherman Luna. She's executive director of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, based in Nashville, Tennessee. Tennessee is one of the states where the legislature is trying to undo the Plilo v. Doe decision. Welcome, Lisa.
Speaker 1 1:56
Glad to be here.
Louis Freedberg 1:58
Well, let me jump in with you, Tom. I've heard you talk about Plyler at various points over the last several years, and you've been relatively optimistic that this was secure, that Plilo was not really in danger of being overturned. I'm wondering what your thinking is right now, given this mounting attacks against the legislation. Of course, the political environment has changed fundamentally.
Tom Saenz 2:24
Yes, the environment has changed, but I am still confident that current law protects Plyler sufficiently that it is not in danger. That is to say, there may be attempts to violate Plyler, but they will be strictly and quickly struck down in court. As you know, Plyler has been under attack from the very beginning, in part because it was a five-to-four decision, which caused the right-wing anti-immigrant folks to immediately target it. One of those targetings occurred, as you know, in California with Proposition 187 in 1994, a dozen years after Plyler was decided. Now, in that case, the provision that would have violated Plyler, allowing schools, in fact requiring them to exclude anyone they reasonably suspected of being undocumented, was almost immediately enjoined both in federal and in state court and ultimately struck down. But what also happened contemporaneously is that the Congress in 1996, so 14 years after Plyler, in part in reaction to Proposition 187 in California, enacted laws dealing with immigrant eligibility for benefits. And one provision that they enacted specifically says that Congress is doing nothing to overturn the decision in Plyler v. Doe. That means that Plyler is now in federal statute. So you don't get to violate Plyler and immediately go back to the Supreme Court and revisit the equal protection-based reasoning of that decision. Instead, you first would face a claim that it is preempted by that 1996 federal law that specifically says that Plyler remains the law of the land. So these potential violations of Pliler would be struck down in court, but not on the basis of equal protection, the basis for the original Pliler decision, but on the basis of federal supremacy.
Louis Freedberg 4:28
Could you just explain what MALDEF's role was at the time for people who are not familiar with this decision?
Heritage Strategy And Systemwide Risks
Tom Saenz 4:34
So the decision, which came out of a mid-70s Texas law that allowed districts to either bar undocumented students entirely or charge them tuition. But that, of course, is the same because the students' families couldn't afford the tuition that would be charged. So both provisions effectively barred students from enrolling in public schools. And MALDEF took on a case in East Texas, brought it before a federal court. It was later joined by another case from Texas, and the two went together through the Fifth Circuit and to the Supreme Court. So ultimately, the court was faced with a challenge to the state law in its entirety. So although it came out of one district, it actually had effects for the entire state, and ultimately, as you said, for the entire country. I think it's important to note that in the 1970s, late 70s, when the case began, no one was sure what the outcome would be. It was viewed as a long shot. It was viewed as a case that there was no certainty that we would win. But ultimately, the five to four decision struck down the Texas law and barred any similar laws from ever being enacted throughout the country. I think it's important to note that although it was five to four, all four of the dissenting justices joined a dissenting opinion that began by saying, We all agree this is bad public policy. No question. If we were making a decision about the policy, we would reject it. But they differed not about the policy, but about its constitutionality. And the reason I mention that is that we have the Heritage Foundation, which does not grapple at all with the fact that some very conservative justices, the dissenters included William Rehnquist, who would later become Chief Justice, perhaps the most conservative Chief Justice in our history, but included conservative justices who all agree this is terrible public policy. The Heritage Foundation does not grapple with that at all. The fact that they are putting forward and asking folks to enact bad public policy according to some of the leading conservative lights of the last half-century.
Louis Freedberg 6:46
You mentioned the Heritage Foundation. They've put out a fairly lengthy report where they go through the decision and they say several things have changed. One of the things that's changed is that there are many more undocumented students. And at the time they say the court said, oh, well, this is just a small number, so it's not really a material issue or burden on school districts. They make the case that circumstances have changed and that the legal base is now, or the environment is now ripe to challenge this.
Tom Saenz 7:17
So they talk about 1996 provisions dealing with higher education, but if they had an understanding of what happened in 96, they would understand that higher education and K-12 were dealt with differently. They never mentioned the provision that says Plyler is incorporated into federal statute, which is the problem. There is no limit on that. It doesn't say this shall no longer apply once there are over X number of undocumented students in schools. It doesn't say that any change circumstance other than Congress choosing to repeal that provision would have any effect on that federal law. And that's the flaw. They're really buying states that choose to do this a lawsuit and that they will lose, right? And then the plaintiffs who win will end up collecting all of their costs and fees from those states. So really the Heritage Foundation, by not delving into the actually applicable law, is misleading states into buying expensive lawsuits that the states will lose. Now, I I have to say, if they actually won and were able to implement one of these laws, the consequences would be even more severe. Because actually implementing a plyler violating law is a recipe to bringing down public education in its entirety in that particular state. And that's because we know what happens when you exclude a large number of students from school. And that is their siblings first, then their friends, follow them out of school, truancy enforcement becomes impossible because any kid who wants to stay out of school will say, I'm undocumented, I don't have to go. So you end up taking enough students out of public schools that they end up having to go out of business because they have not the resources and not the student body, not the teachers that they need. So this is actually a very anti-public education measure. And that may well be what's behind the Heritage Foundation's efforts in this regard.
Louis Freedberg 9:19
Well, let me go now to Lisa Sherman Luna, who is in Tennessee. The legislature there is, I gather, currently considering legislation to charge undocumented students tuition. Is that correct? And where do you think stand now in your state, Lisa?
Lisa Sherman Luna 9:37
Well, first I want to just say I am so glad this is being recorded because I want to make that last point by TomPlyler go viral, because we absolutely see the attacks on Plyler in Tennessee as really another way to dismantle public education as a whole. And I'll get to that in just a minute and explain how that is. But right now in Tennessee, we are in the second year of our 114th General Assembly. And last year we had uh three different bills aimed at denying enrollment or charging tuition to undocumented students in our state. We've seen similar threats like this over the last two decades, but they've never been very serious. They've always been seen extreme, marginal, haven't made it out of committee, but we're in a very different political climate. And when we saw the last bill get filed, it was being sponsored by Republican leadership. Senator Bo Watson and Representative William Lambert, who hold positions of power within their party and within the legislature. So we immediately knew that this was going to be the fight of our lives, that we had never seen a fight like this. Because it wasn't just about kids in Tennessee. It was ultimately about every single child in this country. They were very explicit that this was a Plyler challenge. They released a press statement. They were proudly boasting about it. And we didn't think we'd be able to stop it. But our community, our immigrant members came to us and said, it's great that you all are already thinking about a legal strategy. We actually want to fight to stop this in the legislature. And in the midst of such a hostile inclimate, we had immigrant community members show up at the legislature day after day, committee after committee, sharing their stories, talking about the value of education and organizing beyond just our bases, organizing teachers, parents, school administrators, small businesses, faith leaders. We created a huge coalition and campaign called Education for All. And the bill was eventually paused in the state legislature. It made it through the Senate, but they did not have the votes to move it through the House. And this is a Republican supermajority. And it just became so deeply unpopular that it was a red line. Kicking kids out of school was a red line. And so they shelved it, and it was a huge victory last year.
Louis Freedberg 12:06
Did you get support from Republicans as well?
Lisa Sherman Luna 12:10
Oh, yeah. We had to get support. There was no way of stopping this without Republican support. We knew that our strategy had to be centered around pulling Republican votes to our side. And our campaign did just that. It made it not about immigration, but it made it about education for all kids and really centered that throughout the campaign, throughout the narrative. And it brought folks from all walks of life, teachers, principals, small business owners, faith leaders from all parts of Tennessee who were so motivated by this issue and so outraged at the fact that we would be considering a bill that would deny children access to education.
Louis Freedberg 12:52
So many people in Tennessee are familiar with Plilo v. Doe.
Lisa Sherman Luna 12:56
Yes, now I would say a large number of Tennesseans are very familiar with Plilo v. Doe. Unfortunately, this year we have new players in the mix. Stephen Miller is working directly with our Tennessee leadership on the Republican side. I mean, they've introduced over 40 anti-immigrant bills. And so we have a new formidable force. And they are bringing back the bill that was paused last year. But I would say one small victory in all of this is they have learned their lesson. They know they can't outright charge tuition or deny enrollment. So they've watered down the bill to make it a bill about tracking the number of students in our schools, which is still really bad because we know it has a chilling effect. We know that schools are not equipped to track students. We know what happens in history when we track any kind of demographic. But it shows that this issue, like Thomas said, of kicking kids out of school, charging tuition based on where they were born or how they got here is so deeply unpopular that even in a deep-red state like Tennessee, they cannot push a direct challenge to Plyler through our state legislature.
Louis Freedberg 14:09
Talking with Lisa Sherman Luna, who is executive director of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, just for benefit of our listeners, could you just describe briefly the nature of the immigrant population in Tennessee?
Lisa Sherman Luna 14:25
Yeah, so we are a majority white state. About 70% of the state is white, and our immigrant population is still relatively small, maybe 5-7% of the overall population, but it is growing very fast. Over the last decade, we have had the rate increase very dramatically because people are moving here like anyone for the low cost of living, the availability of jobs, to be in community. We over the last two years have opened up our first Guatemalan consulate in Nashville, our first Salvadorian consulate in the Mexican consulate is rumored to be opening soon, which just shows you how much those populations have grown in our state. But we're also incredibly diverse. In Nashville, there's 140 languages spoken in our public schools. We have the largest Kurdish community in the United States, very large Somali population, and increasingly immigrants and their children are building their homes, starting their businesses, and putting down roots in all parts of the state, not just in the urban centers.
Louis Freedberg 15:28
In terms of where do things stand now, how concerned are you that this legislation will pass? Passed the Senate already?
Lisa Sherman Luna 15:36
Yeah, so the new bill, which is just about tracking the number of students and aggregating the statistics, is going to pass. We do not have the votes to stop it in this session because it's really hard to convince these Republicans in our state legislature that tracking is bad, right? And their mindset, more data, more information is a good thing. But what we know from experience is that it creates a chilling effect on our communities. And so it intentionally or unintentionally suppresses enrollment in our schools and denies children an education. We also know that schools are not equipped to assess people's immigration paperwork. I am an expert on immigration policy. I cannot tell you what somebody's immigration paperwork is, even with over a decade of experience. So, how do we expect school administrators to be able to do this? And it's also very costly because of this. And so we just worked with immigrant research initiative to put out a report where we believe it's going to cost the state $55 million to create the kind of tracking that they want to set up when this money could actually just be put back into our schools to hire more teachers, to buy more textbooks, to increase infrastructure in our schools. But like Thomas said, the point of all this is actually to erode public education as a whole. We start with immigrant students, but we're not going to end there. And we even saw this last year in the Tennessee legislature, where there were actually two other bills aimed at undermining education. One was a private school voucher program, the governor's chief legacy piece that they're about to expand this year, even though it is deeply unpopular, including in rural districts. And a bill to take over Shelby County Schools, which is where Memphis is, a largely black, the largest school district in the state. They wanted to take it over. And so this is all part of the puzzle pieces of slowly chipping away at public education because we know that it's a threat, right? They don't want to have diverse communities in our public schools. They don't want to have folks exposed to the teachings of the civil rights movement, of racial justice in our public schools. And they know they can consolidate their power and control young people and their and the shaping of their minds if they are not in public schools. And so we see this as a very serious threat to public education. And our coalition recognized that. And that's how we got so many people out in support is not just for immigrant kids, but actually for public education as a whole.
Louis Freedberg 18:29
Six of them right now that we know of: Texas, Oklahoma, Idaho, Indiana, and New Jersey have or have tried to get some form of legislation through that would undermine or eviscerate the Plyler v. Doe decision. I just wanted to play a clip from Representative Chip Roy, one of the far-right legislators who is totally against Kevin McCarthy becoming speaker because he wasn't, you know, right-wing enough, who's now running for attorney general in Texas. And he has taken on this Plyler v. Doe issue. This is what he said recently.
Chip Roy 19:04
I do not believe that the taxpayers in Texas should be forced by a court from an opinion 43 years ago, 44 years ago, to have to take tax dollars and fund illegal alien children that are an anchor along with birthright citizenship, causing the pressure of the flow across the border. We need to have a strong aggressive agenda in the Western hemisphere and to make sure that we have the pressure balance reduced. And wait, we can figure out policies to be able to have people come and go across the border, but you've got to change these incentives between free health care, education, and birthright citizenship, which are basically pressures that are causing a lot of the turmoil by cartels exploiting human beings and putting them in danger.
Louis Freedberg 19:44
Thomas Science, what was your just reaction to that? Are we protecting children against cartels? And that's why we have to undo play levisitov?
Tom Saenz 19:53
Well, he's running for attorney general in Texas, which has an incumbent who is crazy, so he's clearly following the same recipe. In fact, he's doubling down on crazy. His entire quote is full of every inaccuracy imaginable about immigration. First of all, school enrollment is not a draw, it is not a magnet for migration. We know what causes people to migrate, and that's their home country conditions, in many cases extremely dangerous, and the opportunity to have economic success in the United States to raise their families. School is not a draw. Second, there is no free health care, as you know, Lewis, for uh undocumented immigrants, is asserting that is just a trope that he pulled out of a Heritage Foundation guidebook in all likelihood. So what he's talking about is nonsense. The state of Texas would be devastated, devastated if they were to implement some sort of plyor violating law. Again, it would mean that in the state of Texas, hundreds and thousands of students would be out of school. That's gonna undermine public education, but it's also gonna mean that those kids during the daytime are gonna be on the sidewalks. Can you imagine what Chip Roy supporters would do if they saw quote unquote those kids out on the streets during the daytime? They'd freak out. So his support for this is simply rhetorical. He's trying to gain Ken Paxton's office as Paxton tries to move to the Senate. Again, that would be a doubling down on crazy in the state of Texas because you'd have the crazy Paxton in the U.S. Senate and crazy Chip Roy in the Attorney General's office. There's nothing to this. It is a right-wing rhetorical point that is used very often and often not followed up on it. Governor Abbott made this threat three years ago, you may recall, in a talk radio program. Never followed up on it because he's he made the statement without understanding and thinking about the impact of actually implementing what he was proposing would be.
Louis Freedberg 21:49
Let me ask you then about what's happening in Tennessee and other states and thinking about school administrators and education leaders in states around the country who may be concerned. About this. Okay, Tennessee, they're going to pass, it appears they're going to pass something that will require schools to identify undocumented students. Wouldn't that in effect be counter to Plyler v. Doe? Would you file a lawsuit against that legislation on that basis?
Tom Saenz 22:17
Yes, that's a violation of Plyler, potentially. There have been two states in the history now, 40 some years since Plyler, that have directly violated it. First was California that I mentioned with Prop 187. The second was Alabama in 2011. And that was a reporting law. And that was struck down by a federal court in Alabama as a violation of the supremacy clause, which I mentioned is the basis for challenging flyer violations these days, though unrecognized by the Heritage Foundation. Would we challenge the Tennessee reporting law? It really matters how it's implemented. But I would first note that there, when it comes to collecting information, there are more protections under federal law. The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act FERPA, with which you are familiar, Lewis, would prevent any misuse of this data. And it means that all of these school clerks, school principals, school teachers would be at risk being sued for violating FERPA if any information they collect tied to a particular student somehow gets released to someone other than the folks in that school district. What that means is when they aggregate it and send it to the state, which I presume is the goal, there would have to be very tight controls, very costly controls. As you've already heard, it would cost millions and millions. In a school system that cannot afford millions and millions layered on top of the challenges that are already faced by school districts across the country. So it's very expensive with additional controls. So there would be a challenge to a reporting statute unless it is all done anonymized, completely anonymized from when it's collected all the way on down and aggregated in an anonymous form and only used in that way. It would still have a deterrent effect, which would be of great concern, which means there would have to be a massive education campaign so everybody not only understands but trusts that any collection of data is totally anonymous from the very beginning.
Louis Freedberg 24:28
If legislation like this is passed in Tennessee and these other states, and maybe a growing number of states, is it possible that those state laws would go into effect even if there was some legal challenge? In other words, while this was being resolved?
Tom Saenz 24:46
So the statute that's being considered in Tennessee would have to be amplified through regulation. There's just no way of implementing it. As Lisa mentioned, immigration law is so complicated, they're going to need additional guidance. So what the legislature may pass, the governor may sign, can't take effect immediately, just in practical terms. But in the end, I have to say, I think the proponents, and particularly those who are in the administrative process of education in Tennessee, they don't really want to implement this. This is about rhetoric. This is about trying to inspire right wing voters. It is not about actually seeking to implement this. So frankly, they would love to have it struck down and enjoyed, because then they get to say they tried and appeal to the right wing voters by saying, look, we wanted to overturn Plyler, but that damn court system stopped us again. That's really what they want. So does anybody want to see this implemented? Not anyone that I can conceive of in a position of responsibility in government in Tennessee or elsewhere. So I don't really expect this to be implemented. The problem is, as soon as it's passed, that effect on deterring people from enrolling their kids begins even without implementation. And that's a major concern.
ICE Fear And Safe Passage To School
Louis Freedberg 26:06
Talking with Tom Science, president of the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Let me just go to Lisa Sherman-Luna from Tennessee. How confident are you that you could prevent this law from having a chilling effect on kids showing up at school?
Lisa Sherman Luna 26:26
I mean, look, right now there's a lot that is chilling participation in our schools, whether it's immigration enforcement, we have the National Guard and 13 federal agencies in Shelby County right now carrying out an operation. So there's already a lot that is preventing students from attending school every day in a normal routine manner. We still are gonna have to see what is the final version of this bill, whether the House will conform to the Senate version or the Senate will conform to the House version. But I will say one thing that we have learned in Tennessee and it's very, very clear, is what Thomas said. There is not a single person outside of the few Republican legislators who are calling for this. And in fact, it's a distraction from what most Tennesseans want and need, which is things like ending the grocery tax, fully funding our public schools, access to health care. It's a distraction so that the wealthy can continue to benefit off of the working and middle class, having private schools that are getting rich off of state funds, taxpayer funds, and tuition, and corporations who are going to benefit from the rapid expansion of privatization of our education. And so all of us, whether we are pro-immigrant or not, should be deeply concerned about our taxpayer funds being used in this manner to chip away at our own self-interest, because that is the ultimate goal. Immigrants are just a pawn right now in the fight for privatization, in the fight for expansion of the billionaire class. Meanwhile, the rest of us are left to pick up the pieces.
Louis Freedberg 28:05
I wanted to ask you about the current situation beyond the legislative attacks and ply levers, something I've wondered about and looking at what's going on in our schools here in California. Right now, there's a chilling effect with all this immigration enforcement that's going on. We know attendance is going down amongst immigrant families, not necessarily even undocumented children. And I've wondered whether we currently, in effect, have violations of Plyler v. Doe on the basis of all this immigrant enforcement. And uh Tom, is that something you've thought about?
Tom Saenz 28:41
So, of course, whenever the atmosphere is such that parents don't feel they can take their kids to school while being protected from potential ICE activity, that is a problem. Anything that keeps particular kids out of school is a problem. But that means that those school districts have an obligation to ensure that those kids are able to get to school safely. So if their parents don't feel safe bringing them to school, then the school district needs to set up other ways for those kids to be accompanied by responsible adults to school. Now, whether that's a busing program or an escorting program, school districts have the obligation, not under Plyler, but under a dozen other laws to make sure that there is equity in education. And then one when one particular cohort of students are overwhelmingly Latino, but immigrant families are facing a different experience in school, districts have to take the steps necessary to fix that. And remote education is a short-term option at best. Ultimately, districts have to make sure there is safe passage to schools where the kids and their parents have confidence in.
Louis Freedberg 29:52
But for Plyler to be meaningful, students have to feel that they can attend school. And many don't. So, Lisa Sherman Luna, what are you seeing in Tennessee schools? Is this chilling effect keeping kids out of school?
Lisa Sherman Luna 30:06
I mean, it certainly is. It really is depending on what is the national and local context, what is happening, right? When there's a big immigration enforcement action, everybody stays home. We've known this for a long time, even going back to 2018 when there was a huge raid in rural Tennessee. We saw over 500 kids stay home the very next day from school. But we'll be working closely and monitoring what happens, what the administrative rules are, what the instructions are to schools around these new laws, ensuring that our communities are informed, ensuring that our rights are respected, both FERPA protections, but also plyler protections, and continuing to organize people to fight bills like this and laws like this, because we know that we actually have the majority on our side. It's just unfortunately in places like Tennessee, our districts have been so gerrymandered that the majority has very little say in governing power. And so we're going to make sure that folks understand the implications of this and are ready to take action to defend their schools and their neighbors.
Louis Freedberg 31:11
And when you say districts, you mean the congressional districts, not the school districts?
Lisa Sherman Luna 31:15
I mean congressional and state house districts, state senate districts, all the way down to the local level. We are not a red state, we're an oppressed state. And I believe deeply that Tennesseans actually want more out of their government and expect the government to address their daily problems like affordability. Unfortunately, with our gerrymandered districts, it is very hard to send that message and to govern in a way that is effective for all of us.
Will Courts Revisit Plyler?
Louis Freedberg 31:42
Last question, just for both of you, Tom. Should this actually go to the Supreme Court? You are expressing some confidence that this will be upheld, but you know, many people don't have much confidence that this court will rule strictly on legal grounds. How do you feel?
Tom Saenz 32:01
I don't believe these issues will make it to the Supreme Court. Again, I think there's enough practical and political opposition to what is being attempted that they will be implemented in a way that does not affect children's right to attend school. Or when they are challenged, they will be struck down in lower federal courts or state courts. So I don't perceive there to be at present any way that Plyler itself gets teed up for the Supreme Court. If it did, I'm confident we would win. Those justices will look at the fact that nine justices, including William Wencrist, said in 1982, this is really bad public policy, and they will not go out of their way to undermine long-standing law, including Plyler v. Bill.
Louis Freedberg 32:50
And so really it does come down to what happens in states and local communities and pushing back on some of this legislation. And just Lisa Sherman-Luna from the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, you were part of a very impressive coalition that was able to push back on the worst legislation. What would you say is the key to getting people engaged for other people who will be facing or are facing these kinds of attacks?
Lisa Sherman Luna 33:17
I think the key is helping to explain how this is part of the big play, which is to dismantle public education as a whole, helping people understand that yes, this is about immigrant children right now, but that ultimately it's about ensuring that none of our children have access to free and public education. It starts with immigrants, but it doesn't end there. And once people understand that, and I would say too, in particular in this environment, we're starting to see the Trump administration's miscalculation with their anti-immigrant agenda. People are waking up every day to their neighbors being terrorized, to their friends being arrested and detained, to their schools being turned into places of fear and hospitals asking about immigration status and all kinds of things. And they're saying this is not what we wanted. This is not what was promised to us, right? And so I think we're gonna see, especially over the next few months, what Americans really think about Trump's mass deportation agenda, including threats to Plyller. And I believe that the majority of Americans are on our side and ultimately that they have miscalculated the support for their anti-immigrant agenda. But it's up to organize it and to channel people into the right outlets to express that anger, getting involved with organizations, showing up to committees, signing up for electoral campaigns, and running for office. There are so many ways that I think we're gonna see in the midterms people coming out of the woodwork to participate in our civic process and defend our values as Americans.
Louis Freedberg 35:02
Well, I want to thank both of you for joining us today. Tom Sines, President of MALDEF.
Tom Saenz 35:08
Thank you, Lewis.
Louis Freedberg 35:08
Also, thanks to Lisa Sherman-Luna, Executive Director of Turk Votes, the political arm of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition. Thanks for joining us.
Lisa Sherman Luna 35:19
Thank you for having me.
How To Reach Us And Subscribe
Louis Freedberg 35:47
You can reach us by going to our website at educationontheine.com. That's education on the line.com. And please subscribe to Education on the Line wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Louis Freedberg. Thanks for joining us.

The Supreme Court's landmark 1982 Plyler v. Doe decision established that every child in America has the right to a public education, regardless of immigration status. For 43 years, that ruling has kept schoolhouse doors open to undocumented children. Now it's under serious attack.

In this episode of Education on the Line, Louis Freedberg talks with two guests on the front lines of protecting Plyler. Tom Saenz is president and general counsel of MALDEF, which argued the original Plyler case before the Supreme Court. Lisa Sherman Luna is executive director TIRRC Votes, the political arm of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition. The Tennessee General Assembly, controlled by a Republican supermajority, is attempting to pass legislation designed to keep documented children out of school. It is one of a half dozen states trying to do the same thing.

The Heritage Foundation, author of the controversial Project 2025, recently launched a campaign to encourage states to challenge Plyler. Saenz believes that despite these efforts, the Plyler decision is secure. Sherman Luna says that organizing along the lines of Tennessee's successful so far Education for All campaign will be needed.

LISTEN IN YOUR FAVORITE APP

Guests:

Tom Saenz is president and general counsel of MALDEF
Lisa Sherman Luna is the executive director of TIRRC Votes, the political arm of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition