[1] The Court found that any state restriction imposed on the rights afforded to children based on their immigration status must be examined under a rational basis standard to determine whether it furthers a substantial government interest.

A 5–4 majority of the Supreme Court found the policy to violate the Fourteenth Amendment, as illegal immigrant children are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and therefore had protection from discrimination unless a substantial state interest could be shown to justify it.

[8] The majority also observed that denying the children in question a proper education would likely contribute to "the creation and perpetuation of a subclass of illiterates within our boundaries, surely adding to the problems and costs of unemployment, welfare, and crime".

[6] In short, the most prominent takeaways from this case were that the Court reasoned that unauthorized immigrants and their children, although not citizens of the United States or Texas, are people "in any ordinary sense of the term" and, therefore, are afforded Fourteenth Amendment protections.

[9] The dissenting opinion also rejected that claim and agreed with the Court that "the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies to immigrants who, after their illegal entry into this country, are indeed physically 'within the jurisdiction' of a state".

Burger further argued that the "Equal Protection Clause does not mandate identical treatment of different categories of persons" and that Texas did in fact have a legitimate reason to seek to distinguish between individuals who were residing in the country legally versus illegally.

In May 2022 Texas Governor Greg Abbott expressed interest in attempting to overturn the case, following the leak of the draft opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization.