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In 2019, Maine passed P.L. 2019, ch. 154, which repealed nonmedical exemptions to mandatory school immunization rules effective September 1, 2021. Six legislators asked AG Frey whether Plyler v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court case about Texas excluding undocumented children from public schools, prohibited that repeal.

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 found no evidence that Texas's exclusion of undocumented children was rationally related to a state interest. The AG said Plyler does not preclude reasonable school entrance requirements such as proof of immunizations. He found the repeal rationally related to increasing school vaccination rates and protecting students unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons.

The letter addresses that Plyler question. It does not decide how a school should handle an individual student's admission or other possible legal challenges to an immunization requirement.

What this means for you

If you are a Maine public school administrator

The AG concluded that Plyler v. Doe does not prevent the Legislature's repeal of nonmedical exemptions. For an individual admission decision, check the applicable school immunization law and current guidance; the letter does not decide when a student may be excluded.

If you are a parent who opposed the 2019 law

The AG letter addresses the Plyler argument and concludes that case does not prohibit the Legislature's repeal. It does not analyze other possible challenges.

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

The letter states that Plyler does not prevent reasonable school entrance requirements such as proof of immunization. Its analysis is limited to the repeal of nonmedical exemptions presented by the legislators.

Background and statutory framework

P.L. 2019, ch. 154, §§ 1 and 12, eliminated nonmedical exemptions to mandatory immunizations for elementary and secondary students effective September 1, 2021. The AG addressed whether Plyler prohibited that action.

The legislators asked whether Plyler v. Doe "proscribes" the elimination. The AG answered no to that question.

As the AG summarized Plyler, a state denying free public education to a discrete group of children must show that the exclusion furthers a substantial state interest. The Court found no evidence that Texas's exclusion based solely on undocumented status was rationally related to a state interest.

Common questions

What exemptions did the 2019 law repeal?

The letter describes P.L. 2019, ch. 154 as repealing nonmedical exemptions effective September 1, 2021. It does not analyze the full set of exemptions or current rules.

Can a school turn away an unvaccinated student?

The letter does not answer that individual admission question. It says Plyler does not prevent reasonable school entrance requirements such as proof of immunization and does not prohibit Maine's repeal of nonmedical exemptions.

Why doesn't Plyler v. Doe block this law?

Plyler dealt with Texas's exclusion of undocumented children from public education. The AG said it does not preclude reasonable school entrance requirements such as proof of immunization and found Maine's repeal rationally related to raising vaccination rates and protecting students who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

Does this opinion mean the law is bulletproof?

The letter addresses only whether Plyler prohibits the repeal. It does not analyze other potential legal challenges.

Who can still get a medical exemption?

The AG refers to students "unable to be vaccinated for medical reasons" but does not explain who qualifies for an exemption or the documentation required. Consult the applicable current rules for those details.

What is the rational basis the AG identified?

The AG identified two goals: increasing overall school vaccination rates and protecting students who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

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