## Facts

- Roberto Morales, a U.S. citizen born in McAllen, Texas, lived in Mexico with his Mexican-citizen parents until age eight.
- His parents sent him to live with his adult sister, Oralia Martinez, in McAllen so he could attend public school and learn English.
- Martinez acted as custodian but did not obtain legal guardianship or other lawful control recognized by the statute.
- Texas Education Code § 21.031(d) authorized school districts to deny tuition-free admission to a minor living apart from a parent, guardian, or other person with lawful control if the child’s presence in the district was primarily to attend public free schools.
- The McAllen Independent School District denied Morales tuition-free enrollment under § 21.031(d).
- Martinez, as next friend, brought a facial constitutional challenge alleging violations of the Equal Protection Clause, Due Process Clause, and Privileges and Immunities Clause.
- The district court upheld the statute; the Fifth Circuit affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether Texas Education Code § 21.031(d) violates the Equal Protection Clause by permitting denial of tuition-free public education to a minor living apart from a parent or legal guardian when the child is in the district primarily to attend school.
2. Whether § 21.031(d) unconstitutionally burdens a claimed constitutional right to travel by conditioning tuition-free education on bona fide residence.
3. Whether the statute is unconstitutional on its face under related Fourteenth Amendment theories, including due process and privileges and immunities.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed in an 8–1 decision.
- The Court held that § 21.031(d) is a bona fide residence requirement that satisfies constitutional standards.
- The Court concluded the statute does not violate equal protection and does not unconstitutionally burden the right to travel.
- Justice Powell authored the majority opinion; Justice Marshall dissented.

## Legal Principles

- A bona fide residence requirement, appropriately defined and uniformly applied, may be a condition for receiving tuition-free public education.
- A state has a substantial interest in ensuring publicly funded services reserved for residents are enjoyed only by bona fide residents.
- Residence requirements for tuition-free public schooling generally are reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny when they apply neutrally and do not create suspect classifications.
- A bona fide residence requirement does not impermissibly penalize travel when it merely requires establishment of residence before access to resident-only benefits.

## Conclusion

The Court upheld Texas’s statutory scheme allowing school districts to deny tuition-free admission to minors who live apart from a parent or legal guardian when their presence is primarily to attend school, treating the law as a constitutionally permissible bona fide residency requirement rationally related to limiting subsidized education to residents.


Martinez v. Bynum, 461 U.S. 321 (1983)