The Tennessee General Assembly passed House Bill 793 on March 27 in an 11-7 House Subcommittee vote that allows districts to either deny or continue the education of undocumented children. The vote caused backlash from a gallery of protesters and public discourse.

HB793, or Senate Bill 836, proposed by House Majority Leader William Lamberth and state Sen. Bo Watson, contradicts the Supreme Court ruling Plyler v. Doe from 1982. The rulings specified local school districts cannot deny a public education to “foreign-born students regardless of residency status.”

Lamberth’s and Watson’s legislation enables public school districts to either deny or continue the education of undocumented K-12 students in public schools. Districts that deny undocumented students must offer the option of paid tuition through a local education agency (LEA) or public charter school. 

During the session, state Rep. Gloria Johnson discussed Plyler v. Doe with state Rep. Scott Cepicky, who heads the Education Administration and Education Instruction Committees. He supported the bill during the session and said he “didn’t like the decision” in Plyler.

Lamberth argued that the bill incentivizes undocumented immigrants toward citizenship, and if this bill failed, resources would continue to be allocated to undocumented students. 

“These children will remain in school at no additional tuition and will take additional resources away from other students,” Lamberth said. “When they graduate, they are not employable. They will, unfortunately, have to live in the shadows for the rest of their days until, eventually, some sort of a pathway for citizenship arises.”

The bill wouldn’t decrease state spending on public schools, but it might freeze federal funding to the state altogether. The Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe contradicts the bill, and this could jeopardize funding to the state for little to no payoff. Republican Rep. Charlie Baum brought these issues to Lamberth’s attention during the session, but Lamberth didn’t have concrete answers.

“There will be legal challenges almost certainly, and there should be legal challenges, but that is their goal,” Johnson said. “Their goal is to get legal challenges, so it goes to the Supreme Court so they overturn Plyler.”

The bill raised shared concerns with MTSU student political leaders over the potential threat to free and equal access state education. Students from either side of the political spectrum agreed that Plyler v. Doe is right and shouldn’t change for Lamberth and Watson’s legislation. 

“Face value, [it] is a horrible bill,” Jorge Avila, president of the MTSU Democrats, said. “I think it’s just disgusting in nature. It’s treating them as like an inferior race.”

Lamberth didn’t directly address other representatives’ concerns regarding what could be long-term shortcomings of the bill. Concerns included the cutting of resources for children and parents from the public schooling system, insufficient workers for the demanded tasks, the potential federal backlash the bill could provoke and all for little to no payoff for the state. 

Harrison Bell, vice president of MTSU College Republicans, disagreed with Lamberth’s assertion that removing public education access for undocumented students incentivizes action toward legal citizenship.

“They [undocumented students] ultimately shouldn’t be here to begin with, but if they’re here anyway, I think every person is entitled to the same justice, the same treatment and same education,” Bell said.

These criticisms led to questions about the motives behind the legislation. Avila echoed Johnson’s sentiment that those who back the bill hope it will travel to the Supreme Court and overturn the Plyler decision.