Plyer vs. Doe court case was a major shift in how undocumented immigrants are protected under the US Constitution. The decision by the U.S. Supreme that states cannot deny students a free public education because of their immigration status. It think that the decision does not go against the 14th Amendment since it is the primary reason why such a decision was made in the first place. The 14th Amendment states “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws” (Congress of the United States, n.d., para. 17). The term ‘person’ applies to undocumented immigrants and their children as well, which means it supports the court’s decision.
Moreover, It think that the ruling on Plyer vs. Doe case supports the 5th Amendment. It states: “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” (Congress of the United States, n.d., para. 8). The 5th Amendment uses the term ‘person,’ which makes it applicable to undocumented immigrants as well. The Texas laws excluded the immigrants without due process of law, which is why the court’s decision supports the amendment.
In the case of the 10th Amendment, It think that it is rather unclear whether or not the decision goes against it. It states: “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people” (Congress of the United States, n.d., para. 13). In other words, it implies that it is up to states to decide how to allocate their education budgets unless it is within explicit power of the federal government. Since both the 5th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution are in direct alignment with the decision, then the authority falls within the federal government, making the 10th Amendment supportive of the ruling as well.
Reference
Congress of the United States. (n.d.). All Amendments to the United States Constitution. Web.