The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) is taking a stand against Virginia, filing a lawsuit aimed at blocking a law that allows undocumented immigrants to enjoy in-state tuition rates at public colleges. This action addresses a significant clash between state policies and federal immigration law. The DOJ argues that offering these discounted rates creates an unfair advantage for undocumented students, putting American citizens from other states at a financial disadvantage.
In-state tuition at Virginia’s flagship public university, the University of Virginia (UVA), provides a staggering discount—almost $40,000—compared to the out-of-state tuition fees. Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon highlights the heart of the issue, stating, “This type of state policy directly undermines federal law by giving tangible public benefits to individuals who reside unlawfully in the country.” It’s a clear message: such policies not only flout the law but also create a divide between legal residents and those who are not.
The lawsuit comes after a 2020 Virginia law enabled undocumented students who attended high school in the state for two years to qualify for in-state tuition. This was expanded further in 2021, allowing them access to state-funded financial aid as well. The DOJ claims this violates a 1996 federal statute that prohibits giving these educational benefits solely based on residency while not extending the same benefits to all American citizens.
U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi emphasizes the premise of equal treatment under the law. She underscores that if states offer in-state tuition to individuals based on residency, the same must apply to all U.S. citizens, regardless of where they live. “Virginia has failed to do that,” she asserts, reinforcing the claim against what the DOJ sees as discriminatory practices.
The financial stakes are high. Consider the 2025–2026 projected tuition at UVA: in-state students pay $23,897, while out-of-state students, including U.S. citizens from other states, face costs of $62,923. Such a vast difference raises serious questions about fairness, especially regarding the Americans who obey the law but see their rights overlooked.
The Justice Department’s legal action is part of a broader effort by the current administration to confront state policies that grant public benefits to undocumented immigrants. Similar challenges in other states, like Texas and Florida, have led to the dismantling of such laws, showcasing the growing pressures on state governments to align with federal mandates.
A significant point in the ongoing debate is the potential impact on the estimated 510,000 undocumented students currently enrolled in U.S. colleges and universities. Advocacy groups warn that dismantling access to in-state benefits could sharply decrease college attendance and completion rates for these students. However, the DOJ maintains that adherence to federal law remains paramount, emphasizing the need for consistency across state lines.
Virginia’s lawmakers now face increased scrutiny, particularly UVA, as they navigate not only the lawsuit but also the implications of recently settled complaints regarding admissions practices. The interim president of UVA has yet to publicly address the lawsuit, yet it is imperative that the university consider federal compliance to prevent potential financial repercussions, such as losing federal research funding.
The broader implications of this legal battle could reshape how states across the nation address tuition for undocumented students. Should the DOJ succeed, it may set a precedent for dismantling similar programs in at least 22 other states that currently offer benefits to undocumented residents.
Attorney General Bondi’s remarks reinforce the principle that while states can design their educational systems, they must do so within the framework of federal law. Any deviation could lead to significant consequences, particularly if policies create disparities between legal residents and those residing unlawfully.
This lawsuit highlights the dynamic tension between immigration law and educational policy. As the hearings unfold, Virginia’s decision-makers may need to reevaluate longstanding practices, keeping in mind the critical balance between compassion and compliance with federal statutes. The DOJ’s legal action signals that any preferences rooted in illegal immigration status are likely to face fierce resistance at the federal level, especially if they result in disadvantageous outcomes for American citizens.
"*" indicates required fields
