NASHVILLE, Tenn. After weeks of intense protests and heated discussions, Tennessee's Republican supermajority has decided to temporarily halt a contentious bill that aimed to deny enrollment in public K-12 schools to children who do not have legal immigration status. However, the lawmakers advocating for this measure have made it clear that this is not the end of their efforts.

Republicans across the nation have been eyeing the potential to instigate a lawsuit surrounding this issue, similar to a recent case in Mississippi that ultimately led to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning federal abortion rights in 2022. Such a lawsuit could be a pathway to revisiting the landmark 1982 ruling of Plyler v. Doe, which established the constitutional right to education for all children, irrespective of their immigration status.

The push for this bill is rooted in a broader national strategy. The Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank known for shaping the Trump administration's policiesincluding the controversial Project 2025has urged states to adopt legislation that challenges Plyler v. Doe. In a 2024 brief, they argued that "unchecked illegal migration over the past three years has possibly cost the public education system billions of dollars." They contended that a surge in non-English-speaking children negatively impacts the educational environment.

These claims regarding the financial burden of undocumented students have appeared in various state legislatures nationwide. Despite the lack of concrete data on the number of undocumented students in classrooms, Republicans have cited the increase in English learners within public schools as evidence of a problem. Notably, estimates from EdTrust, an advocacy group focused on educational equity, indicate that the majority of these English learners are actually U.S. citizens.

This year, however, efforts to challenge Plyler have faltered in several states. Legislation in Texas, Indiana, and New Jersey has either stalled or failed to progress. Even Oklahoma's Republican state superintendent faced resistance when attempting to advance similar policies, as Republican Governor Kevin Stitt pledged to block such measures.

In Tennessee, the proposed bill was the closest to being enacted. In April, it narrowly passed the state Senate amidst fierce debates. Republican state Senator Bo Watson, a co-sponsor of the legislation, argued on the Senate floor that the bill was primarily a response to financial concerns.

We have been mandated or forced to pay that additional cost without consideration, Watson stated. Plyler was the voice of the court being imposed on the people. This, my friends this is the voice of the people being exercised through their elected representatives.

However, the potential economic ramifications of the bill were also a significant concern. Phillip Lovell, a representative from All for Ed, a national organization advocating for equitable access to education, testified that the undocumented community in Tennessee contributes an estimated $350 million in taxes and possesses a purchasing power of around $3.5 billion. Lovell emphasized that investing in education for all students ultimately benefits the economy. The more someone learns, the more they earn and the more taxes they pay. Your spending on education is not just spending; its an investment, he explained.

The bill's fate took a turn when Representative William Lamberth, the Republican sponsor, withdrew it from consideration just before the Tennessee House was set to vote. A state review indicated that if passed, the legislation could jeopardize over $1 billion in federal education funding due to potential violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Responding to these concerns, Lamberth requested clarification from U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon regarding the extent of potential funding at risk, but the state did not receive a timely response before the legislative session concluded.

Advocates for immigrant rights view this pause as a significant victory. Lisa Sherman Luna, the executive director of the Tennessee Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, expressed gratitude to all who protested and spoke out against the bill. To all the children, parents, educators, faith leaders, business owners, and everyday Tennesseans who spoke out your calls, your emails, and your presence at the Capitol worked, she stated. The organization played a crucial role in organizing demonstrations and rallies throughout the legislative session, with protesters consistently filling hearing rooms and waving signs that proclaimed messages like Education for all and I stand with immigrants.

Looking ahead, the proposed legislation is not entirely abandoned. Tennessee Republicans have indicated plans to revive the measure next year, contingent on how receptive the federal government might be to such legislation. If the bill reaches the U.S. Supreme Court, there are concerns among advocates that the outcome could differ from the 1982 decision. Stella Yarbrough, the legal director of the ACLU of Tennessee, noted that the Supreme Court's current conservative majority has shown a willingness to overturn established precedents.

I think that they're reading the tea leaves correctly, Yarbrough remarked. I think that they are correct that they are going to get a second bite at the apple. Despite the potential challenges, Yarbrough assured that the ACLU would still seek legal recourse if similar laws resurface. Even if you think you're going to lose in the long run, putting off that losseven for a day, a week, a yearcan be meaningful, she concluded.