Does the federal Plyler v. Doe ruling prevent Maine from requiring students to be vaccinated and removing religious or philosophical opt-outs?
Subject
Whether Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on undocumented children and public education, blocks Maine's removal of non-medical (religious and philosophical) exemptions to school vaccination requirements. AG Aaron M. Frey concluded it does not.
Plain-English summary
In 2019, Maine passed P.L. 2019, ch. 154, which repealed the religious and philosophical exemptions to mandatory school immunization rules. Voters upheld the law in a 2020 referendum, and it took effect September 1, 2021. Six legislators wrote AG Frey in 2023 asking whether Plyler v. Doe, the 1982 Supreme Court case about Texas excluding undocumented children from public schools, prevents Maine from doing this.
The AG said no. Plyler says that if a state denies free public education to a discrete group of children that other children get, the state has to show the exclusion advances a substantial state interest. The Court struck down the Texas law because excluding undocumented children was not rationally tied to any legitimate state interest. That logic does not block neutral school entrance requirements like vaccination. Requiring kids to be vaccinated is rationally related to two clear state interests: raising overall school vaccination rates, and protecting children who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons (immunocompromised kids, kids with allergies to vaccine components, infants too young to vaccinate). The Maine repeal applied to all students alike. It was not aimed at a discrete group the way the Texas law was. So Plyler does not invalidate it.
The opinion is short, two pages, and direct. There is no extensive constitutional analysis because there is no real question to answer at length: Plyler is about exclusion of a class from education, not about generally applicable health and safety rules.
What this means for you
If you are a Maine public school administrator
You can continue to enforce the vaccination requirements without worrying that Plyler v. Doe invalidates them. Children can still be excluded from school for failing to meet the immunization requirement, just as they could be excluded for any other generally applicable entrance requirement. Medical exemptions remain available; religious and philosophical exemptions do not.
If you are a parent who opposed the 2019 law
The 2019 law was challenged in court (a separate case from the Plyler theory) and Maine voters ratified it via referendum. This 2023 AG opinion only addresses the Plyler argument and concludes it does not work. Other constitutional theories (free exercise of religion under the federal or state constitutions) have been litigated separately and would need to be evaluated on their own. This opinion does not foreclose those, it just rules out the Plyler angle.
If you are a Maine legislator
The AG's conclusion is straightforward: the 2019 repeal stands up to Plyler scrutiny. If a future bill tried to expand or restore non-medical exemptions, this opinion does not address that. It only confirms that the existing law is legally defensible against the Plyler argument.
If you are tracking school health policy
This opinion is a useful reference point for the AG's framing of vaccination requirements as generally applicable, rationally-related-to-public-health entrance rules rather than exclusionary classifications. That framing matters in equal protection challenges to school health policies in other contexts.
Background and statutory framework
Maine has long required vaccinations for students attending elementary and secondary schools. Until 2019, parents could claim religious or philosophical exemptions in addition to medical exemptions. P.L. 2019, ch. 154 (sections 1 and 12) eliminated the non-medical exemptions effective September 1, 2021. Voters affirmed the law in a 2020 referendum (Question 1, defeated, which would have repealed the legislation).
The legislators who requested this opinion did not say which side of the debate they were on, but the framing of the question (whether Plyler v. Doe "proscribes" the elimination) reads as a probe to see whether the law is vulnerable to a federal constitutional challenge. The AG's answer was a clean no on that specific theory.
Plyler v. Doe held that Texas could not deny free public education to children based on their parents' immigration status. The Court applied a heightened rational basis review and concluded that excluding undocumented children "solely on the basis of their legal status" was not rationally related to any state interest. Plyler is most often cited for the principle that states must offer education to all children present within their borders, regardless of immigration status, and cannot single out groups for educational exclusion without strong justification.
Common questions
Does Maine still allow religious or philosophical exemptions to school vaccinations?
No. As of September 1, 2021, only medical exemptions are available. The 2019 law repealed religious and philosophical exemptions, and Maine voters affirmed that change in a 2020 referendum.
Can a school turn away an unvaccinated student?
Yes, if the student does not have a valid medical exemption. The school is enforcing a generally applicable entrance requirement, not excluding a class of children based on a protected characteristic.
Why doesn't Plyler v. Doe block this law?
Plyler dealt with a Texas law that excluded children based on their immigration status, a discrete classification with no rational link to any educational or fiscal goal. A vaccination requirement applies to all children alike and is rationally tied to public health goals: protecting overall school vaccination rates and protecting medically-vulnerable students who can't be vaccinated. The Court has consistently allowed states to impose neutral health and safety requirements on school attendance.
Does this opinion mean the law is bulletproof?
No. The opinion only addresses the Plyler theory. Free exercise of religion challenges, free speech challenges, and other constitutional theories have been litigated separately. This opinion does not address those, it just rules out the Plyler argument.
Who can still get a medical exemption?
Children for whom a vaccination is medically contraindicated, as documented by a healthcare provider. The exact medical-exemption procedures are regulated by the Department of Health and Human Services and the Department of Education. Religious and philosophical reasons no longer qualify.
What is the rational basis the AG identified?
Two interests, both clearly within state power: increasing the overall school vaccination rate (which produces herd immunity benefits) and protecting students who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons (because they would be more exposed in a school where unvaccinated peers create disease pools).
Citations
The opinion's central authorities, drawn directly from its text:
- U.S. Supreme Court precedent: Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982).
- Maine session law: P.L. 2019, ch. 154, §§ 1, 12 (effective September 1, 2021), repealing non-medical exemptions to mandatory school immunizations.
Source
- Landing page: https://www.maine.gov/legis/lawlib/lldl/agops/agops.htm
- Original PDF: https://lldc.mainelegislature.org/Open/AG/Opinions/2023/ag_20230414.pdf
Original opinion text
MAINE STATE LEGISLATURE
The following document is provided by the
LAW AND LEGISLATIVE DIGITAL LIBRARY
at the Maine State Law and Legislative Reference Library
http://legislature.maine.gov/lawlib
Reproduced from electronic originals
(may include minor formatting differences from printed original)
2023-01
REGIONAL OFFICES
84 HARLOW ST. 2ND FLOOR
BANGOR, MAINE 04401
TEL: (207) 941-3070
FAX: (207) 941-3075
AARON M. FREY
ATTORNEY GENERAL 125 PRESUMPSCOT ST., SUITE 26
PORTLAND, MAINE 04103
TEL: (207) 822-0260
FAX: (207) 822-0259
STATE OF MAINE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 14 ACCESS HIGHWAY, STE. 1
TEL: (207) 626-8800
CARIBOU, MAINE 04736
6 STATE HOUSE STATION TEL: (207) 496-3792
TTY USERS CALL MAINE RELAY 711
AUGUSTA, MAINE 04333-0006 FAX: (207) 496-3291
April 14, 2023
Hon. James Libby, Senator
Hon. Gary Drinkwater, Representative
Hon. Sheila Lyman, Representative
Hon. Heidi Sampson, Representative
Hon. Barbara Bagshaw, Representative
Hon. Edward Polewarczyk, Representative
Maine State Legislature
2 State House Station
Augusta, ME 04333-0002
Greetings Senator and Representatives,
You have asked for a legal opinion on whether Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)
proscribes the Legislature's elimination of non-medical exemptions to mandatory immunizations
for students in elementary and secondary schools. See P.L. 2019, ch. 154, §§ 1, 12 (eff. Sep. 1,
2021).
In Plyler, the United States Supreme Court held that if a State denies a discrete group of
children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, it must
be able to show that doing so furthers a substantial state interest. Id. at 230. The Court concluded
that there was no evidence that a Texas law excluding children solely on the basis of their legal
status as undocumented immigrants was rationally related to any state interest. Id. at 227-230.
Nothing in Plyler precludes states from imposing reasonable school entrance requirements,
such as proof of immunizations. The Legislature's repeal of non-medical exemptions to those
vaccination requirements was rationally related to the goals of increasing overall school
vaccination rates and protecting students who are unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons.
Sincerely,
Aaron M. Frey
Attorney General