It makes no sense to educate and protect law breakers.

Huh? A little more info would be kinda good.

One of the worst SCOTUS decisions in history. Just one more case completely distorting the meaning of the 14th by liberal justices.

Although it should have been 9-0 on the side of Texas and against illegals based on Constitutional merits alone, O'Connor as the only justice born and raised in border states should have been given three extra votes in the decision.

Unfortunately I don't trust Robert's, Barrett, Gorsuch, or Kav when it comes to cases involving illegal children. So the case to overturn this would have to press a different button to gets three out of four of these to side with Alito and Thomas who absolutely would have sided with the four dissenters in this case. Rehnquists dissent here really makes me miss that man on the court. It didn't matter how he or anyone on the court felt about children not being educated. It's not an authority granted to the court! The proper legislative body made a decision that is theirs to make when it comes to children here illegally in this country using educational resources(resources they were NOT being denied as long as they paid for them).

Agree it was poorly rationalized under Constitutional law and was more of a feelz type of decision. And it led to a lot more public spending on illegals.

I think that a lot of the rationalizations of Pyler v Doe no longer exist in the current USA.

For example, here is a ringer:

Quote:

---

The record does not show that exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State.

---

Might have been true in 1982. Is absolutely not true in 2026.

Having gone up against several pro se's in the last couple of months in trial courts, I can say for certainty that there are areas of the law that people can for sure make fools of themselves trying to articulate without at least a BASIC legal education. By that, I mean something along the lines of the fairly recent Masters of Legal Studies or even some better paralegal training. Not necessarily law school per se, but SOMETHING more than undergraduate business law or even graduate education law for admins to be.

However with all that said, this case is the opposite. It begs the question of ANY court that hears it and even THINKS of ruling against (in this case) Texas: what part of ILLEGAL do you not get? This case stands for the idiotic proposition that illegal means nothing IF there is a tangible benefit to the (also illegal resident) children.

So does that mean that petty theft, or even bank robbery, is justified if it helps feed your kids? Jacking a car is justified if it means getting your kids to the doctor or hospital? Committing violence is fine if your kids benefit from it?

Hell no. Like too many USSC decisions, this was an engineered decision: the court decided an outcome it wanted, then wrote an "opinion" to get there. That's not their role. In this case, the court pretended that illegals have no educational options in the countries they came here from and that it was our job to educate all kids, regardless of status or criminal activity.

It was a disgusting decision, regardless of how you feel about kids and education, and Reagan SHOULD have said, no, we're not going to enforce this.

You're too quick to criticize Gorsuch. Although I don't always agree with him, he is of impeccable intellectual honesty and a towering intellect.

Even the great Scalia could be results oriented. In one famous decision he decided that the federal conviction of a pot farmer in California, who was growing pot solely for his own use, was a Constitutional exercise of federal power under the interstate commerce clause. That was not intellectually honest.