Is Virginia thumbing its nose at federal law by offering discounted college tuition to noncitizen students?
According to Townhall, the Trump administration has launched a legal challenge against the Commonwealth of Virginia, asserting that the state’s policy of granting in-state tuition rates to unauthorized migrants violates federal statutes and constitutional principles, while disadvantaging American citizens from other states.
Turning back the clock to 2020, Virginia enacted a law under then-Gov. Ralph Northam, a Democrat, is allowing certain noncitizen students to pay lower in-state tuition rates. This policy applied to those who attended a Virginia high school for at least two years and graduated, provided they either held legal status or had applied for it.
Democrats at the time framed this as a compassionate move to support longtime residents lacking legal documentation in accessing higher education. But let’s be honest—prioritizing noncitizens over out-of-state American students feels like a classic case of progressive overreach, putting optics before fairness.
The Trump administration’s lawsuit, filed on Dec. 31, 2025, argues that Virginia’s approach directly contradicts federal immigration guidelines. It contends that states are barred from extending postsecondary education perks to unauthorized individuals when those same benefits aren’t equally available to U.S. citizens.
“[Federal law] prohibits States from providing aliens who are not lawfully present in the United States with any postsecondary education benefit that is denied to U.S. citizens,” states the complaint. If that’s the rule, Virginia’s defiance seems less like compassion and more like a deliberate sidestep of national authority—a risky game to play.
Under Virginia’s rules, noncitizen students can be classified as residents for tuition and financial aid purposes, even if their immigration status isn’t fully resolved. Meanwhile, American citizens hailing from neighboring states are slapped with higher out-of-state rates. This disparity, the lawsuit claims, creates an unfair playing field.
The White House further argues that such state-level decisions impact broader immigration policy by potentially encouraging illegal entry into the country. Offering taxpayer-funded advantages to unauthorized migrants, they say, sends the wrong message at a time when border security remains a pressing concern.
“[Federal law] preempts state rules that grant illegal aliens benefits when U.S. citizens haven’t received the same,” the complaint notes. If federal law is meant to be the final word, Virginia’s policy looks like a direct challenge to that supremacy—hardly a unifying stance in an already divided nation.
The lawsuit also invokes the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause, alleging that Virginia’s statutes are unconstitutional by overriding federal authority. By extending tuition benefits to unauthorized migrants on terms not offered to all American citizens, the state is accused of overstepping its bounds. Critics of progressive policies might see this as another example of states cherry-picking which federal laws to follow. When national standards are ignored, the result is a patchwork of rules that can erode trust in governance itself.
Virginia’s law may have been pitched as a lifeline for students raised in the state, but the Trump administration’s case raises a valid point about equity. Why should out-of-state American families foot a bigger bill while others bypass the same burden?
The broader implications, as outlined in the lawsuit, touch on how state actions can shape national immigration dynamics. Policies that appear to reward unauthorized presence could act as magnets, complicating efforts to manage borders effectively.
For conservatives, this lawsuit underscores a core belief: federal law must hold sway over state-level experiments that risk undermining national priorities. Virginia’s tuition policy might have noble intentions, but good intentions don’t trump legal boundaries.
As this legal battle unfolds, it’s a reminder that the tension between state compassion and federal oversight isn’t just academic—it hits real families in the wallet. Perhaps it’s time for a hard look at whether such policies truly serve the greater good, or simply fuel more division.