NASHVILLE, Tenn. (AP) — Damian Felipe Jimenez has many dreams about his future — he could be a restaurant owner, a scientist or maybe something else. As he works through sixth grade, he knows education will be critical in making his dreams a reality, but he’s increasingly worried that option could soon disappear for some of his classmates.

Felipe Jimenez is one of hundreds of children who have packed the Tennessee Capitol this year to oppose legislation designed to upend the long-standing U.S. constitutional right to free public education for children, regardless of immigration status. It’s a protection established by the landmark 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe, which struck down a Texas law that sought to deny enrollment to any student not “legally admitted” into the country.

“I am the son of immigrant parents who have shown me to respect and value everyone,” Felipe Jimenez told lawmakers earlier this year, speaking on behalf of the impact the bill would have on his peers. “Just like me and all the kids in this country, we have the right to dream and make those dreams come true. The right to an education should not be taken away from us because of our immigration status.”

A growing number of conservative leaders are pushing states to overturn Plyler v. Doe — including the conservative think tank The Heritage Foundation. This year, Tennessee’s Republican lawmakers appear the most willing to take up the cause by advancing legislation that directly contradicts the Supreme Court’s decision and would spark a legal battle that supporters hope will not only go before the high court but also allow justices to reverse the ruling.

GOP-led states have introduced a plethora of anti-immigration bills following President Donald Trump’s reelection and his subsequent moves to aggressively deport immigrants who have entered the U.S. illegally. But few have followed Tennessee’s lead to focus on revoking public education from children, and none have made it out of committee.

An uphill fight but a different Supreme Court

The Republican-controlled Tennessee Senate has approved a proposal requiring proof of legal residence to enroll in public K-12 public schools and allowing schools to either turn away students who fail to provide proper documentation or charge them tuition. The House version differs by letting public schools check immigration status, rather than requiring it.

The two versions will need to be reconciled before they can head to Republican Gov. Bill Lee’s desk. If it passes, the legislation is all but certain to face a lawsuit.

The sponsors of the proposal have largely downplayed denying children the right to education, but instead have focused on the fiscal impact states are facing in educating children residing in the U.S. illegally.

“It’s been argued that undocumented illegal aliens pay sales tax and property tax,” said Republican Sen. Bo Watson, the backer of the bill in the Senate. “True. But one doesn’t know if those payments come close to offsetting the additional costs. We argue they do not.”

It’s unknown how many undocumented children live in Tennessee, and it’s unclear if the proposal would result in any savings. When Texas made similar economic arguments in the Plyler case, it was rejected by the court.

Lawmakers and other conservative supporters repeatedly point to the 5-4 vote that determined Plyler in 1982, stressing the narrow decision means there is wiggle room to overturn the precedent — particularly under the current Supreme Court that has been open to reversing legal precedent, including on the right to abortion.

“It doesn’t take one too long to figure out that there’s a strong appetite by the conservatives on the Supreme Court to overturn precedent,” said Brett Geier, a professor of educational leadership at Western Michigan University. “And where does it come from? It starts with the states.”

The first test against the Plyler decision came in 1994 in California. Voters there approved a proposition prohibiting immigrants in the country without legal authorization from receiving public health care, education or other social services. That law was overturned.

In 2011, the Plyler precedent was challenged again after Alabama lawmakers required schools to determine student immigration status. That statute was eventually blocked after a legal challenge resulted in a settlement.

“I don’t see real debates about this. I see symbolic measures that are supported by some groups of Republican legislators,” said Thomas Saenz, president of the law firm Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which successfully defended the plaintiffs before the Supreme Court in the Plyler case.

“They do trot up same old arguments from the 1970s about the burden of the costs, etc., etc.,” Saenz added. “They never balance that against the benefit of taxes being paid by these kids and their parents.”

For children, the fight turns personal

For months, as GOP lawmakers have defended the legislation, the tone of those who have shown up to fight against the bill has often turned emotional. Students have broken down in tears, distraught over their classmates being removed from their school and worries over who might be next.

As the Senate voted earlier this month, 12-year-old Silvestre Correa Del Canto stood outside in the crowded second floor of the Capitol with his mother, alarmed that the legislation could hurt children who don’t make the decisions about where they live and could impact their lives for years.

His family brought him to Nashville when he was 3 from Santiago, Chile. He now attends a public middle school that was originally a segregated school for African Americans. He connected that legacy to the Tennessee legislation.

“I feel like we’ve worked a lot to be connected again, people with people and going to school together,” Correa Del Canto, a sixth grader, said. “And I feel like that would be just going steps back, just going back in time and like losing all that we’ve worked for.”

___

Associated Press writer David Lieb contributed from Jefferson City, Missouri.

Privacy Manager

On the second floor of Tennessee’s Anderson Training Center, Billy High is working feverishly to find the Vols a new quarterback to replace Nico Iamaleava.

High, who started his career as Lane Kiffin’s UT recruiting intern in 2009, is now the director of internal and advance scouting. That means he’s the point person for identifying potential quarterback prospects in the transfer portal.

Down the hall, coach Josh Heupel and offensive coordinator/quarterbacks coach Joey Halzle are meeting with players about their future with the Vols and plotting the program’s next move at its most important position.

And UT’s NIL collective must be brought into the loop once the biggest decisions are made by Heupel.

The transfer portal is open April 16-25. The Vols will get a new quarterback after Iamaleava bolted when NIL negotiations broke down.

But it’s not as simple as UT picking a player, inking an NIL deal and announcing it to an eager fan base. There are many moving parts and big questions to answer.

Can Tennessee get a premier quarterback in transfer portal?

Landing a veteran starter is a tall order in the spring portal window. The best quarterbacks are already well paid and established in their programs.

So scratch off star quarterbacks like Arizona State’s Sam Leavitt and Kansas State’s Avery Johnson from the wish list.

However, there are proven starters willing to consider UT if the money and opportunity are right.

Iamaleava was reportedly paid more than $2 million per year via his NIL contract. If a veteran quarterback wants to transfer to UT, he would hold a reasonable amount of leverage.

However, UT must consider several factors across the roster before pulling the trigger on any quarterback.

NICO IAMALEAVA: What really hit a nerve for Josh Heupel when QB left

Is protecting Jake Merklinger a high priority?

If UT lands an established starter, redshirt freshman Jake Merklinger would presumably remain the backup, just as he would’ve been for Iamaleava.

Then Merklinger could compete for the starting job in 2026 alongside freshman George MacIntyre and five-star recruit Faizon Brandon, who’s committed to sign with the Vols in December.

But landing an established starter also could push Merklinger to the portal if he thought he had a better chance at a starting job at another school. The Vols would have to risk losing Merklinger to get a surefire starter or, at least, come to an understanding beforehand.

If UT lands a second-tier transfer, Merklinger has a shot to win the starting job this season. But he would also gain some leverage to negotiate an increase in his NIL deal.

Sure, Merklinger is unproven. He’s played only two games and thrown nine passes. But this is the blessing and the curse of UT stacking highly touted quarterback recruits on its roster.

Will other transfers impact Tennessee’s QB budget?

There’s a multi-layered cost analysis involved here.

UT must consider the cost in NIL money of a transfer quarterback, a potential raise for Merklinger if he’s the starter and other additions to the roster.

How much are they worth? And how much does paying a quarterback impact improving the roster elsewhere?

For example, the Vols have only seven scholarship wide receivers on the 2025 roster, and they’re mostly inexperienced. They need to add another receiver, but that won’t come cheap.

Chris Brazzell is UT’s most seasoned receiver with 29 receptions for 333 yards and two TDs last season. Former five-star recruit Mike Matthews had seven receptions. Braylon Staley had three catches as a freshman.

No other UT receivers have made a catch in college. They include Alabama transfer Amari Jefferson, who redshirted last season, and three true freshmen.

Whether Merklinger or a transfer starts at quarterback, they’ll need help.

Could Tennessee players enter portal based on QB decision?

The portal is a two-way street, so UT must keep its roster intact while shopping for a quarterback.

Coaches have had exit meetings with players this week, which are routine after spring practice. That’s when coaches evaluate their progress and go through their offseason plan.

With the portal opening, it’s also an opportunity to gauge players’ likelihood of transferring. The uncertainty at quarterback can be unsettling, so coaches are trying to calm any concerns.

For example, Matthews considered going into the portal in December when it appeared Iamaleava might do the same. There’s no indication that Matthews will re-consider.

But now that Iamaleava is gone, coaches must implement their portal plan quickly to keep their offensive weapons from looking elsewhere. The Vols need a quarterback, but they also need a supporting cast.

It’s a difficult balancing act, but that’s the state of college football these days.

Adam Sparks is the Tennessee football beat reporter. Email adam.sparks@knoxnews.com. X, formerly known as Twitter@AdamSparks. Support strong local journalism by subscribing at knoxnews.com/subscribe.

Get the latest news and insight on SEC football by subscribing to the SEC Unfiltered newsletter, delivered straight to your inbox.