In Martinez vs. Bynum, the US Supreme Court ruled that:
A. The STate could enforce a residence requirement for students. B. The STate was required to educated the children of illegal aliens. C. The State was required to educate non-resident children. D. None of the above.
The state could enforce a residence requirement for students.-case facts: a texas law permitted public school districts to deny tuition-free admission to minors living apart from their parents if their primary purpose of living in the district was to attend school free of charge. roberto morales left his family in mexico to live with his sister, oralia martinez, in texas. when the school district denied morales application for free admission, martinez challenged the law in court.
did the texas law violate the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment?
no. in an 8-to-1 decision, the court held that the constitution permitted states to restrict eligibility for tuition-free education to bona-fide residents. the court found that the texas requirement was far more generous than traditional residency requirements, since it extended benefits to many children even if they did not intend to remain in a school district indefinitely. no violation of the equal protection clause was found.