In the 1982 case Martinez, as Next Friend of Morales v. Bynum, Texas Commissioner of Education et al., the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Texas residency requirement for public school students. The plaintiff was a Mexican citizen whose guardian lived in Mexico but sent him to live with his sister in Texas so he could attend American schools without paying tuition fees. The court found that this arrangement violated state law requiring students to reside permanently within their school district's boundaries and not just for educational purposes. It held that such laws were constitutional because they served legitimate state interests by preventing potential abuse from non-residents seeking free education services while contributing nothing towards local taxes funding those services.

In the dissenting opinion for Martinez v. Bynum, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of Plyler v. Doe and an infringement on equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. He contended that denying access to public education based on residency status is discriminatory and unjustified by any substantial state interest. Furthermore, he believed this ruling would disproportionately affect poor children who may not have stable living arrangements due to circumstances beyond their control such as homelessness or family instability. According to him, these children should be considered residents of where they actually live rather than being denied educational opportunities because they do not meet traditional definitions of "residency". The denial of free public schooling in his view amounted to creating a permanent underclass unable to contribute fully to society.