The recent ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that a Texas school district has the authority to charge tuition for students who are not living with their parents or guardians, but are attending school in the district. The Court’s decision in the case of Martinez v. Bynum, with a majority vote of 8-1, is the second time in less than a year that the Justices have ruled on the constitutionality of a section of the Texas Education Code that allows school districts to prevent nonresidents from attending their schools. Last year, in the Plyler v. Doe case, the Court invalidated a part of the law that allowed Texas schools to deny free public education to undocumented immigrants residing in the state.
In the Martinez case, however, the Court stated that a different subsection of the law permits the McAllen Independent School District in Texas to refuse free education to Roberto Morales, a 14-year-old student. Morales was born in the United States and lives with his sister in McAllen, but his parents reside in Reynosa, Mexico, a town located across the border. The relevant part of the Texas law requires school officials to admit a student if either the student or their parent, guardian, or person with lawful control over them resides in the school district. However, schools are exempt from this requirement when the student lives separately from their parent or guardian and their presence in the district is primarily for the purpose of attending public schools.
Many states have laws that establish residency requirements for free public schooling, some of which resemble the Texas statute questioned in the Martinez case. According to Timothy T. Cooper, a school-law specialist in Houston and a member of the National Organization on Legal Problems in Education, the Court’s decision has highlighted the legality of such residency requirements.
Although Mr. Morales was born in McAllen and is a U.S. citizen by birth, the Court concluded that he does not officially "reside" in the school district because his sister is not his official guardian, and it is unclear whether McAllen is his true and permanent home where he intends to return when he is absent.
Associate Justice Thurgood Marshall, who disagreed with the majority decision, argued that there is no evidence indicating Morales’ intentions beyond completing his education. Marshall claimed that speculation about Morales’ plans after graduation in 1987 is not sufficient grounds to deny him a free education.
In delivering the majority opinion, Associate Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr. referred to the Court’s opinion in the Plyler case, acknowledging that while undocumented alien children cannot be excluded from free public schools, school districts have the right to determine residency through established criteria. The majority emphasized that a bona fide residence requirement, when defined and applied consistently, serves the state’s substantial interest in ensuring that only residents benefit from services provided by the state. Requirements for residency simply necessitate that individuals establish their residency before accessing restricted services, particularly when it comes to primary and secondary education, which are vital functions of local government. Without residency requirements, the proper planning and operation of schools would be significantly affected. Therefore, the state has a legitimate interest in imposing bona fide residence requirements to uphold the quality of local public schools.
Justice Marshall, in his dissenting opinion, argued that Texas school officials have not uniformly applied the state’s residency test.
Your goal is to paraphrase the entire text using richer language while ensuring uniqueness, and all output must be in English. The given text is as follows:
