How a SCOTUS Decision on Birthright Citizenship Could Impact Education Access

Any child born on U.S. soil has a right to citizenship. It was established by the 14th Amendment in 1868, and affirmed by the U.S. Supreme court 128 years ago. On Wednesday, the high court is set to hear oral arguments in a case that could narrow or even end birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara.

The Trump administration has argued the “privilege” has been too freely applied to children of non-citizens. “Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn’t meant for that reason,” President Trump said last year.

If this constitutionally protected right is struck down by the court, it would apply to children born on or after Feb. 20, 2025. According to a projection by the nonpartisan Migration Policy Institute and Penn State, that could result in about 255,000 U.S.-born children beginning life without U.S. citizenship every year. By 2045, that could add up to 4.8 million children.

“Birthright citizenship is fundamental for child wellbeing,” says Wendy Cervantes of The Center for Law and Social Policy, a nonpartisan organization focused on helping people with low incomes. “It has helped ensure that all children in the U.S. can start off life with some sort of equal footing and opportunity.”

Much of that equal footing comes courtesy of the country’s K-12 public schools. While schools are a place for children to learn, they’re also a central access point for a range of services: free meals, mental health support, services for students with disabilities and much more. Without the right to citizenship, access to those services could be complicated for many children – as could access to college.

Here’s what to know about how a Supreme Court ruling to end or narrow birthright citizenship could change the education landscape.

Public schools can’t turn students away because of their immigration status

All children, regardless of immigration status, have the right to a free K-12 public education in the United States. That right was affirmed in the landmark 1982 Supreme Court ruling Plyler v. Doe.

The case centered on whether Texas could prohibit the use of state funding to educate children who were living in the U.S. unlawfully. Also in question was whether a public school district could charge foreign-born students tuition to enroll. Immigrant students sued and prevailed.

In Plyler , Cervantes says, “It was recognized by the justices that denying a K-12 education to children, a basic education, would create a permanent underclass in our society.”

Because of this decision, school districts are not supposed to collect immigration data on their students or their families. But immigrant advocates worry that Plyler has become a political target.

“The conservative movement has made very clear their intention to overturn Plyler v. Doe by even providing a playbook to state legislatures to help make that happen,” says Alejandra Vázquez Baur, co-founder and director of the National Newcomer Network, which advocates for recently arrived immigrant students.

The Heritage Foundation, the conservative think tank behind Project 2025, which has shaped much of the Trump administration’s agenda, recently called for states to restrict public education for undocumented students and has recommended that states directly challenge the Plyler decision, arguing that it cost states hundreds of millions of dollars in education spending in 2023 alone.

“States have a convincing interest in preserving limited taxpayer dollars by prioritizing U.S. citizens and lawful immigrants,” wrote Lora Ries of Heritage.

Tennessee lawmakers are among those taking action: There are currently bills moving through the state legislature that propose tracking K-12 students’ legal status and allowing public schools to refuse to enroll undocumented students. Several other states have also proposed legislation that directly, or indirectly, threaten Plyler.

If any of these proposals turn into laws, they could invite legal challenges, and ultimately re-open the question of whether immigrant children have the right to a public education.

A right to education doesn’t mean families feel safe sending their kids to school

Immigration enforcement efforts can take a toll on school attendance.

MPR News reported that after heightened federal immigration presence in Minnesota early this year, some districts experienced a 20-40% increase in absences. And that trend predates the Trump administration: Researchers at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank based at Stanford University, found that after immigration raids in January 2025, school districts in California’s Central Valley had a 22% increase in absences.

Vázquez Baur says these findings show immigrant children’s constitutional right to attend K-12 public schools is already under threat.

“The law is still the law, children can still go to school. Now, we know that that is being complicated at this moment by immigration enforcement around schools,” she says. “The birthright citizenship issue complicates that even further.”

Sophia Rodriguez, a professor of education policy at New York University, has been studying the impact of immigration enforcement on school attendance. She says she has heard reports of “constant fear, anxiety and stress” from immigrant families concerned about sending their children to school. “And when you add this potential end to birthright citizenship, you create larger numbers of communities who are living in fear and anxiety,” she says.

Some studies have shown that, historically, when there is a rise in local immigration enforcement, fewer Hispanic students enroll in nearby schools, which can disrupt their education and affect school funding. In most states, public school districts receive funding based on daily student attendance and overall enrollment.

This comes as many school districts are already facing enrollment declines.

Students with disabilities could fall through the cracks

For many children, schools are the first point of contact with public services such as nutrition programs, healthcare, language learning and counseling. That is especially the case for immigrant families, says Rodriguez of NYU. “[Schools] are often the one social institution or public institution that immigrant families access.”

They are also often the first place children’s disabilities are identified, and where those students can tap into the services they need to be successful. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) is the central special education law that guarantees all disabled children the right to a “Free Appropriate Public Education.”

“So those are things that aren’t going away or changing based on immigration status,” says Anne Dwyer, a professor at Georgetown University’s Center for Children and Families. “But if a community is experiencing immigration enforcement or fear of enforcement at such a level that parents don’t even feel comfortable bringing their children to school, then those children are automatically not going to be able to access those very supports that schools provide.”

Schools also rely on state and federal Medicaid dollars to pay for services like physical, speech and occupational therapy. The program covers about half of all students with special education plans according to an analysis by KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research organization. Medicaid funding also makes up a significant portion of public school budgets: The U.S. Education Department reported in 2024 that Medicaid sends schools between $4 billion and $6 billion annually.

“Even if a school can’t potentially provide a type of service, they’re probably going to be a broker to those resources,” says Rodriguez.

However, Medicaid is typically limited to U.S. citizens and people with other qualifying legal statuses. If birthright citizenship is eliminated, U.S.-born children who would have previously been citizens may no longer qualify for Medicaid. For any of those children who have disabilities, schools would still be legally obligated to serve them under IDEA, but they would have to find a way to replace the lost Medicaid funding.

“That would create potential, huge cost shifts to districts,” says Dwyer. “And we know school districts are already incredibly strapped.”

Paying for higher education would get a lot harder

While the law currently provides a K-12 education for all students, the same is not true of higher education. Students without legal status can still enroll in college, but they don’t have access to federal financial aid, such as federal student loans and the Pell Grant, which helps low-income students and is currently facing a funding shortfall.

And because of their status, undocumented students are also more likely to come from impoverished backgrounds, says Caitlin Patler, a professor of public policy at UC Berkeley. “Those two things together make affording higher education almost impossible for children who are undocumented.”

In some states, including Georgia and Alabama, undocumented students are not allowed to attend certain public colleges; other states charge them out-of-state tuition.

Patler says research shows U.S. citizenship is directly tied to opportunities that increase a child’s educational attainment. “And therefore much later on, as you follow children throughout their lives, educational attainment is directly correlated with stronger economic contributions.”

She worries about a future in which birthright citizenship is narrowed or eliminated. “This would have a cascading ripple effect, potentially through multiple generations, of forcing this large and growing group of millions of children into a caste-like status.”

A caste-like status, she says, in which their opportunities would be dictated not by their potential, but by their immigration status.

Edited by: Nicole Cohen
Visual design and development by: LA Johnson