United States v. Virginia
BrynoDC Coverage 3 videos
YouTube 
Overview
Overview
The Trump administration sued Virginia over a state law which allows undocumented immigrants residing in Virginia to qualify for reduced tuition at public colleges.
The Issue
Issue
Whether Virginia's law allowing undocumented immigrants to qualify for reduced in-state tuition at public colleges is preempted by federal immigration law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1621, which restricts states from providing most 'public benefits' to undocumented aliens.
The Rules
Rule
Federal law preempts conflicting state law under the Supremacy Clause. 8 U.S.C. § 1621 prohibits states from granting 'public benefits' to undocumented immigrants absent specific federal authorization, with narrow exceptions for emergency medical care and certain public health services.
The Application
Analysis
The Trump administration contends Virginia's in-state tuition provision violates § 1621 by extending a public benefit to undocumented residents. Virginia must defend the law as falling within a statutory exception, arguing tuition is not a 'public benefit,' or asserting valid state authority over education policy.
The Conclusion
Conclusion
On October 5, 2026, Senior U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne of the Eastern District of Virginia granted summary judgment to the Commonwealth of Virginia and denied the United States' motion, dismissing the case with prejudice. The United States had argued that two Virginia in-state tuition laws, the Domicile Pathway (Va. Code Ann. § 23.1-502) and the 2020 Tuition Equity Pathway (Va. Code Ann. § 23.1-505.1), were expressly preempted by 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a), which bars a state from giving an alien who is not lawfully present a postsecondary benefit on the basis of residence unless U.S. citizens receive the same benefit regardless of residence. The court rejected both challenges. It held that the Domicile Pathway is not preempted because Virginia's binding SCHEV guidelines make undocumented students ineligible for in-state tuition under it, so the federal bar is never triggered. It held that the Tuition Equity Pathway is not preempted because eligibility turns on attending and graduating from a Virginia high school (or passing an equivalency test) and on filing Virginia tax returns, not on residence. As an alternative basis, the court ruled that the Tuition Equity Pathway is independently saved by the statute's exception because nonresident U.S. citizens can also obtain Virginia in-state tuition without regard to residence. The court did not reach Virginia's argument that the suit unconstitutionally commandeered the state. Noting the virtual certainty of an appeal, Judge Payne set out the alternative holding for the record. The ruling diverges from decisions by the Fifth Circuit and a federal court in Illinois that had accepted the United States' reading of the statute, which this court found unpersuasive and distinguishable. The United States may appeal to the Fourth Circuit.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support