The 2025 Republican-led bill HB 0793 permits Tennessee public schools to deny enrollment to, or charge tuition for, students who cannot establish their legal immigration status. Proponents of the bill cite the need to protect the state’s fiscal interests as its main justification, while critics argue that it would violate federal law regarding undocumented students, referencing the 1982 Supreme Court decision Plyler v. Doe, which ruled that states cannot deny free public education to children residing in the country illegally.
In Plyler v. Doe (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Texas could not deny free public education to children of undocumented immigrants, holding that such a policy violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority opinion emphasized that denying education would impose long-term social and economic costs by perpetuating poverty and marginalization. The Court also affirmed that these children, regardless of immigration status, are protected under the Constitution, and that withholding education served no substantial state interest.
The bill’s proponents say, however, that Tennessee is not defying the Constitution and that the Court’s ruling can be challenged. Tennessee is actually upholding the law by prioritizing lawful residents and exercising its right to protect state and citizen-empowered interests.
According to Matthew G. Andersson, a former business executive and contributor to Minding the Campus, the Constitution can be interpreted through a “blended” lens combining two dominant theories of constitutional law. While it is a contract by “We the People,” those people are citizens of individual states voluntarily united:
The People rise to authority as citizens of their United States regarding national sovereignty, national security, defense and freedom of passage, but they do not thereby surrender their state-based sovereignty regarding the states they reside in.
Within this framework, Andersson argues, Tennessee has the authority to legislate on behalf of its citizens, including in areas like education and immigration. Federal rulings such as Plyler v. Doe can therefore be challenged by laws like HB 0793, especially as the precedent no longer reflects the realities of mass illegal immigration and the resulting strain on public services.
Andersson also noted that “blue” states like California and New York routinely defy the Supreme Court and the Constitution on issues like immigration and gun rights. Thus, Tennessee has every right to assert its own values in response. “Blue state governors have formed an effective sub-national government,” Andersson said, “the Red ones are free to do so as well.”
Beyond the legal objections to Plyer v. Doe, there’s also a practical argument: Plyler v. Doe made sense only in a context far removed from today’s immigration crisis. At the time, the Court did not—and likely could not—anticipate the scale of illegal immigration or the strain it would place on public resources. Since the 1982 ruling, the illegal immigrant population has ballooned, and under President Biden’s lax border policies, the burden has grown exponentially—at massive cost to American taxpayers.
[RELATED: A New ‘Ellis Island’: U.S. Colleges and Universities Defy Immigration Enforcement]
According to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), U.S. taxpayers now spend at least $182 billion annually on the 20 million illegal immigrants and their children—that number is probably conservative.
The Court also likely never imagined that a presidential administration would openly ignore immigration law. Yet as Minding the Campus managing editor Jared Gould reported, that’s exactly what happened. On March 27, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education revoked Biden-era waivers that had allowed colleges in California and Oregon to funnel federal money to illegal immigrants.
These waivers, granted under the Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth (P3), part of the 2014 Consolidated Appropriations Act, were intended to help at-risk U.S. youth, not subsidize services for illegal students. The diverted funds were specifically designed for low-income, first-generation, or disabled U.S. citizens and legal residents. Yet documents reviewed by Gould showed that Biden officials explicitly waived those requirements, contravening both the letter and spirit of federal law.
Moreover, Tennessee’s public schools already face severe budget constraints. As of last month, the state ranked 47th in K–12 per-pupil funding. With overcrowded classrooms and underpaid teachers, schools are already stretched to the limit. Adding illegal students to the student population only deepens the strain and forces schools to do more with less.
Importantly, the proposed legislation, HB 0793, does not ban illegal immigrants from enrolling in public schools. It grants schools discretion. If a student cannot show proof of (1) U.S. citizenship, (2) pending legal status, or (3) a valid visa, then the school may choose to (a) charge tuition, (b) enroll the student tuition-free, or (c) decline enrollment altogether. This flexibility is a far cry from a blanket exclusion.
Andersson added that opponents of the bill are invoking the 14th Amendment as if it grants rights to everyone worldwide. But, as he has argued, the Amendment applies specifically to “the People of the United States,” as defined in the Constitution’s Preamble. And, for reform-minded conservatives, Tennessee must be able to set policies that serve its citizens, especially when Washington fails to enforce immigration laws or pursue reform.
HB 0793 passed the Senate but has stalled in the House amid fierce debate. Time is needed to see if the state moves the legislation forward. In the meantime, Andersson says that the bottom line is that “Tennessee is exercising its lawful powers to enforce rightful Tennessee interests, empowered by its state citizens, its state constitution, and the federal Constitution, and is obligated to deny any rights other than basic human ones, to illegals.”
Image: “Tennessee State Capitol, Nashville, Tennessee” by Ken Lund on Flickr
