Gatekeeping the Classroom: How Tennessee’s SB 0836 Threatens Equal Education for Undocumented Students

In 2025, although the second Trump administration made it clear that immigration enforcement would undergo stricter and more expansive measures, many underestimated the extent of the changes. [1] By the end of January, videos and photos of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents taking alleged illegal immigrants into unmarked cars made their way into thousands of communities, spreading fear. The second Trump administration's new focus on the deportations of immigrants integrated into thousands of communities within the U.S. laid the groundwork for states that agreed with the President’s policy focus to put out bills and laws that aggressively targeted illegal immigrants in their state. In New Jersey, State Representative Paul Kanitra introduced bill A5233, otherwise known as the PLYLER Act, which aims to revise public school enrollment policies by imposing a tuition on all undocumented students. [2] This bill asserts that education is not a constitutional right and that states should have the authority to control who qualifies for taxpayer-funded schools. Bill A5233 was referred to the New Jersey State Assembly Education Committee and remains pending in the early stages of the legislative process. 

While A5233 and other bills remain unpassed due to their potential violations of the Constitution's civil rights clauses, one particular bill made its way through the Tennessee Senate despite having a murky constitutional redefinition of who exactly is eligible for public education in the state. Tennessee's Bill State Bill 0836, sponsored by State Senator Bo Watson, proposes that public schools require proof of legal status for enrollment and allows local educational agencies and charter schools to refuse enrollment to those who cannot provide proof of legal status. [3] This bill at first glance may seem like it fully blocks undocumented students from attending school. However, it instead allows undocumented students to enroll if they pay a tuition imposed by the school. Though the bill has advanced considerably in Tennessee's legislature, it directly violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, as interpreted in Plyler v. Doe (1982). [4] In this landmark case, the state of Texas had similarly passed a law allowing school districts to deny enrollment to undocumented children. The law was challenged by families in Tyler, Texas, whose undocumented children were denied access to public education. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, where, in a 5-4 decision, the Court struck down the law, ruling that undocumented children are held as "persons" under the Constitution and hence protected by the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The ruling established that states cannot deny free public K-12 education based on immigration status, nor can they create financial or other barriers that prevent equal access to education. Moreover, if state law violates the Constitution or civil rights protection, the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) has the authority to withhold federal education funds from that state. 

Despite this long standing precedent, Tennessee's State Bill 0836 attempts to reinstitute the same type of barrier the Court struck down in Plyler v. Doe by requiring tuition payments for undocumented students. This questionable, unconstitutional grey area in the bill is why it remains frozen in the House, despite being passed in the Senate, as Tennessee Congress members fear the potential loss of federal funding. In addition to possible legal violations, SB 0836 exacerbates the current trend of immigrant intimidation, threatening immigrants in the community from exercising their constitutional right to education, which was interpreted to include undocumented students in Plyler v. Doe. Young students in Tennessee expressed their opposition to the bill by gathering at the Tennessee State Capitol to protest its passage through the Senate, echoing the Supreme Court's decision passed down in Plyler v. Doe: The children of these immigrants have no accountability for their legal status, and should therefore not be punished for it. Ultimately, Tennessee's paused state Bill 0836 reinforces a troubling trend of aggression towards undocumented immigrants, attempts to erode the rights of undocumented immigrants by overstepping immigration jurisdiction, and, if passed, could exacerbate the current Supreme Court's trend of gutting past rulings.

To understand SB 0836’s greater legal implications, one must first understand the rationale behind passing a bill in clear violation of one of the Supreme Court’s long-standing decisions. State Senator Bo Watson introduced Tennessee Bill 0836 on February 10th and passed it on First consideration. It then passed on Second consideration and was referred to the Senate Education Committee, finally passing to the Finance, Ways and Means Committee with a vote of five ayes to four nays. State Senator Watson explained that the bill will address the fiscal burden undocumented students put on the Tennessee Public Education system: "We never had a chance to talk about the cost and the financial impact this has on the state of Tennessee when Plyler was ruled upon in '82. This gives us that opportunity, and we ought to be willing to talk about it, even if it makes folks a little bit uncomfortable", Senator Watson explained, arguing this bill is about money, not targeting students. [5] When SB 0836 passed the Tennessee Senate, it sent a clear message: some lawmakers are willing to push the boundaries of constitutional law to reshape who has access to public education. While this bill passed the Senate, it was paused in the House and redirected to the Finance and Ways and Means subcommittee. In addition, SB 0836 was paused in the Finance, Ways and Means subcommittee as committee members feared losing funding due to the bill's potential violation of federal law; however, the very act of the bill passing in the Senate shows that state legislatures are starting to shift and are taking bolder risks in terms of challenging long held precedents.

Other Tennessee Senators expressed frustration that this bill was targeting innocent children, rather than examining the finances of the Tennessee Public Education system. State Senator London Lamar responded, "They don't even know how many undocumented students are actually in the schools, and are passing one of the most egregious laws in the country to do this." Considering that the Tennessee Senators do not know the real cost of undocumented students to the state's public education, their claim that this bill is rooted in financial concern is largely facetious. If enacted, SB 0836 will likely trigger a funding freeze because it violates civil rights protections outlined in the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, which was interpreted in Plyler v. Doe to include undocumented students. However, the true danger of SB 0836 lies in its potential to overturn U.S. immigrant protections. This current iteration of the Roberts Supreme Court is no stranger to gutting past precedents, as it did with Roe v. Wade (1973) when presented with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022). [6];[7] Roe v. Wade established that the Constitution protects a woman's right to have an abortion under the right to privacy, but this was overturned with the reasoning provided in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization that abortion is fundamentally different from other privacy rights because it involves the destruction of what the state terms an 'unborn human being'. Therefore, by revisiting Plyler v. Doe, many fear that the Court will rule against its past precedent and adopt a new legal understanding of who is entitled to free education and who is not, based on a new conservative interpretation. 

One safeguard to a potential Plyler overthrow by the Supreme Court is how SB 0836 breaks multiple federal protections. In addition to SB 0836 challenging the protections afforded by the Equal Protection Clause, the bill also conflicts with federal protections under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), which prohibits schools from disclosing personal information, such as immigration status, without explicit consent. [8] SB 0836 would require schools to collect and assess students' status as a condition of enrollment, which puts schools in the clear position of violating FERPA. Finally, even if this bill was theoretically passed and went all the way to the Supreme Court, SB 0836’s survival would depend on reframing it as an education policy rather than an immigration law because states have the authority to control education based on the 10th Amendment, which confirms powers not delegated as federal in the Constitution as falling to the states. This argument fails to hold up if the real function of this bill is exposed: excluding undocumented students based on immigration status. When coupled with the precedent set in Arizona v. United States (2012), in which the Supreme Court ruled that immigration enforcement is fundamentally a federal responsibility, rebranding SB 0836 as education policy would be a hard path. [9] In 2010, Arizona passed SB 1070, a law that cracked down on undocumented immigrants by giving local law enforcement the power to detain and investigate individuals they suspected were undocumented. However, the federal government sued Arizona, arguing the state law interfered with federal immigration enforcement, which is a federal responsibility under the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution. Likewise, Tennessee's bill tries to enforce immigration policies through state mechanisms, such as public schools. Still, even though education is being restricted due to immigration status, it straddles the line of federal immigration authority because education falls under state purview. Ultimately, SB 0836 blurs legal lines regardless of how many obstacles it faces, and in the scenario it is upheld by the Court, it could carve out a dangerous precedent that would weaken the protection FERPA provides and give states the ability to gatekeep education under the guise of administrative policy. 

SB 0836 is more than just a state bill; it is a potential legal challenge that could overturn the Plyler v. Doe decision and put thousands of undocumented students at risk. The Court's current pattern of overturning long-standing precedents should be considered, particularly in light of past challenges to Plyler v. Doe. Although lawmakers have paused SB 0836 due to a potential loss of federal funding, it is still essential to analyze what would happen if Tennessee takes the risk and passes it. Recently, the Supreme Court gave the Trump administration a win with its ruling in Trump v. CASA de Maryland, stating that federal courts generally cannot issue broad, nationwide injunctions unless necessary to fully protect the plaintiffs. This decision stemmed from litigation over the first Trump administration's expanded "public charge" rule, a policy that made it more difficult for immigrants to obtain legal status if they used certain public benefits, which the Biden administration rescinded. While the Court did not reinstate the rule, its ruling opens the door for future administrations to revive similarly restrictive immigration policies, as the protection provided by federal court decisions would depend on where someone lives, since federal court injunctions no longer automatically have a nationwide impact. [10] The Constitution alone does not hold the fate of undocumented children's right to education, but instead it is in the hands of the states that have proven themselves more than willing to push the courts. The question now should not be whether Plyler v. Doe can be reversed, but how soon until someone tries to. 

Edited by Andrew Puthumana

[1] “Tennessee immigration bill allowing schools to bar undocumented students stalls.” AP News, March 20, 2024. https://apnews.com/article/tennessee-immigration-students-73e446fc2e12299d49c94ce4101b4884

[2] A.B. 5233, 2024-2025 Session, New Jersey Assembly (N.J. 2025). https://legiscan.com/NJ/bill/A5233/2024.

[3] S.B. 0836, 114th General Assembly (Tenn. 2025). https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/114/Fiscal/FM1213.pdf.

[4] Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 210 (1982).

[5] NewsChannel9. “TN Sen. Bo Watson champions undocumented students bill; Former school board member disagrees.” https://newschannel9.com/news/local/tn-sen-bo-watson-champions-undocumented-students-bill-fmr-school-board-member-disagrees.

[6] Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113 (1973).

[7] Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022).

[8] Jobs for the Future. Understanding the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). https://www.jff.org/idea/understanding-family-educational-rights-and-privacy-act-ferpa/.

[9] Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012).

[10] Trump v. CASA de Maryland, 602 U.S. slip op. at 17 (2025).