In Nashville, Tennessee, Republican legislators have temporarily halted a proposed law aimed at challenging the constitutional right of children to enroll in public schools regardless of their immigration status. With the legislative session nearing its end, they are seeking clarity from U.S. authorities on whether the bill could risk losing federal education funding for the state.
House Majority Leader William Lamberth, who is sponsoring the bill, announced on Monday that this move reduces the likelihood of the bill advancing this year, especially as lawmakers prepare for an expected adjournment. The decision was first reported by The Tennessee Journal.
Throughout the year, hundreds of students have crowded into the Tennessee Capitol to protest the bill, which targets the protection set by the 1982 Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe. The landmark decision overruled a Texas statute that attempted to refuse school enrollment to students not “legally admitted” into the United States.
A version of the bill has already been passed by Tennessee’s Republican-majority Senate. It would necessitate proof of legal residence for K-12 public school enrollment, permitting—but not mandating—school districts to either deny enrollment to those unable to provide proper documentation or to charge them tuition. However, the House version remains inactive in a subcommittee and only allows schools to check immigration statuses instead of mandating it.
Lamberth highlighted the fact that Tennessee receives roughly $1.1 billion in federal educational funding each year. He stated, “We fully trust the Trump Administration will not withhold federal dollars from our schools due to the passage of House Bill 793/Senate Bill 836.” He added a note of caution, explaining the decision to pause for prudence’s sake.
Conservative leaders, including The Heritage Foundation, are increasingly advocating for states to revisit the Plyler v. Doe ruling. Among these efforts, Tennessee’s Republican lawmakers have been notably proactive in pursuing legislation that opposes the current Supreme Court precedent.
Supporters of the bill have generally downplayed the implications of denying educational rights, instead emphasizing the financial burden on states that educate children living unlawfully in the country. However, projections regarding any potential savings remain unclear.
The proposed legislation has elicited strong emotional reactions, with students tearfully addressing legislative bodies, expressing concern and distress over classmates being potentially forced out of schools. While Monday’s announcement has been welcomed by some critics, they issue a warning that the bill remains alive until the legislative session concludes.
Lisa Sherman Luna, executive director of the Tennessee Immigrant & Refugee Rights Coalition, commented, “What’s undeniable is this: lawmakers have been forced to acknowledge the overwhelming, bipartisan opposition from across the state to targeting children and denying them an education.”
Proponents of the bill, as well as other conservative voices, cite the original 5-4 decision in the 1982 Plyler case, believing the close vote might allow for a future reversal given the current composition of the Supreme Court, which has recently overturned established rights like that of abortion.