Trump Admin Sues Virginia Over In-State Tuition for Immigrant Students

In a bold move escalating tensions between federal immigration enforcement and state education policies, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit against the Commonwealth of Virginia on December 29, 2025.

The 13-page complaint targets Virginia’s laws allowing certain undocumented immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities, alleging direct violation of federal law and the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause.

This action, part of a broader Trump administration campaign, argues that Virginia’s domicile-based residency rules discriminatorily favor unlawfully present aliens over out-of-state U.S. citizens. As debates over immigration, education access, and states’ rights intensify, this case could set precedents for dozens of similar policies nationwide.

The Roots of the Dispute– Virginia’s Tuition Equity Policy

Virginia’s challenged provisions, primarily in the Virginia Education Code (sections like §§ 23.1-502 and 23.1-505.1), determine eligibility for in-state tuition based on domicile—essentially, establishing Virginia as one’s primary residence.

These neutral-on-their-face rules require factors like living in the state for a specified period, paying taxes, or attending high school locally. Crucially, since updates around 2022, the laws explicitly prohibit denying domicile solely based on immigration status or a parent’s immigration status.

This framework allows qualifying undocumented students—often long-term residents who arrived as children—to pay significantly reduced rates.

For the 2025-2026 academic year at the University of Virginia (UVA), in-state tuition stands at approximately $23,897 for undergraduates, compared to $62,923 for out-of-state—a difference of nearly $39,000 annually. Proponents view this as “tuition equity,” enabling talented youth to pursue higher education and contribute economically.

The DOJ contends this setup effectively grants postsecondary benefits to unlawfully present aliens based on residence, while denying the same to non-resident U.S. citizens, creating unlawful discrimination.

Federal Law at the Core: 8 U.S.C. § 1623 and Preemption

The lawsuit hinges on Section 505 of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a). This statute states:

“An alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State… for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit… without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

In plain terms, states cannot offer residency-based tuition discounts to undocumented immigrants unless they extend identical benefits to all U.S. citizens nationwide, regardless of residency. The DOJ argues Virginia’s policy flouts this by tying benefits to in-state domicile without universal access for citizens.

This is an “as-applied” challenge: The laws aren’t facially unconstitutional but allegedly violate federal law when applied to undocumented students. The remedy sought? Permanent injunction under the Supremacy Clause, preempting state rules that conflict with federal immigration objectives.

Supporting precedent includes a 2023 Fifth Circuit opinion noting § 1623’s “sole focus… on improper benefits for illegal aliens,” though that case denied relief to out-of-state students challenging a different policy.

Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

The suit aligns with President Trump’s early second-term actions. In February 2025, he issued Executive Order “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders,” directing agencies to scrutinize benefits for unqualified aliens and target conflicting state laws, explicitly mentioning in-state tuition disparities.

This Virginia filing joins a series: Similar DOJ lawsuits hit Texas (settled quickly, ending its program), Kentucky, Illinois, Oklahoma, Minnesota, and California. The administration frames these as enforcing 1996 reforms to deter illegal immigration by removing public benefit incentives.

Critics, including immigrant rights groups, argue the interpretation misreads § 1623—states can offer residency-based benefits neutrally if not explicitly tied to unlawful status. At least 22 states plus D.C. have comparable “tuition equity” policies, benefiting thousands of students.

Over 20 States with Similar Policies

Virginia’s approach isn’t unique. States like California, Texas (pre-settlement), and New York have long provided in-state rates to undocumented residents meeting criteria like high school attendance and affidavits of future legalization intent.

Advocates cite economic benefits: Educated immigrants boost workforce productivity, pay higher taxes, and reduce reliance on social services long-term.

Data from the Higher Ed Immigration Portal estimates over 13,000 undocumented students in Virginia higher education, with thousands graduating high school annually. Denying access could push talented youth into low-wage jobs or out of state.

Yet, conservatives highlight taxpayer burdens and incentives for illegal entry. The massive tuition gap at flagship schools like UVA underscores fiscal stakes—subsidizing education for non-citizens while out-of-state Americans pay full freight.

News broke rapidly, with outlets like The New York Times, Reuters, NBC News, and conservative sites like Townhall and Daily Signal covering extensively. Reactions split predictably: Supporters praise enforcement of federal primacy, calling Virginia’s policy an “insult” to citizens. Opponents, including the National Immigration Law Center, decry it as punishing aspiring students and ignoring statutory nuances.

Virginia’s outgoing Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin hasn’t commented publicly yet; incoming Democrat Abigail Spanberger may shift defense strategy. Social media buzzed with #TuitionEquity vs. #AmericaFirst debates.

Legal experts note potential weaknesses: Some interpretations allow neutral residency rules, and past challenges (e.g., pre-2025 cases) often failed.

---

HAPPENING NOW

• Federal Judge Blocks Trump Administration’s Attempt to Defund CFPB, Citing Vought’s Own Words and Flawed Legal Theory
• Melania Trump Launches Muse Films, Kicks Off $40M Hollywood Documentary Era
• Babson College Freshman Captured by ICE Goons at Boston Airport and Deported

---

The DOJ’s case rests on express preemption—§ 1623’s clear prohibition. By “laundering” benefits through domicile while barring immigration-status denials, Virginia allegedly circumvents the ban.

However, defenders argue the law isn’t “on the basis of residence” for unlawful aliens specifically—it’s residency-neutral. Extending in-state to all citizens nationwide would collapse public higher education funding models, an impracticality Congress likely didn’t intend.

Politically, this tests federalism: Immigration is federal domain, but education is traditionally state. Success here could invalidate dozens of policies, affecting hundreds of thousands.

Economically, studies show tuition equity yields positive ROI—higher earnings, taxes—from educated immigrants. Blocking access might exacerbate workforce shortages in key sectors.

Psychologically, it spotlights “Dreamers”—DACA-like youth raised in America—humanizing abstract policy.

Filed in Richmond federal court, the case awaits assignment and initial hearings. Injunction requests could halt Virginia’s policy swiftly, mirroring Texas. Appeals likely head to the Fourth Circuit, potentially Supreme Court.

If upheld, wave of settlements or repeals possible. If rejected, emboldens states.

Broader, it signals aggressive second-term enforcement, prioritizing deterrence amid border debates.