House Education Committee approves bill letting local districts verify immigration status and charge tuition in some cases

At a special session of the Tennessee House Education Committee, members voted 11-7 to pass House Bill 793 as amended, a measure that would let local education agencies (LEAs) request documentation of a student’s U.S. citizenship, immigration status or application for citizenship, authorize districts to charge tuition for some students and require aggregate reporting to the Tennessee Department of Education.

The bill’s sponsor, Leader Lambert, said the amendment adopted in committee retains local control while expanding the documents LEAs may request. "What this amendment does is ... an LEA may check for birth certificate, may check for immigration status," Lambert said, and it "gives an option for that family to pay a tuition." The amendment also added an appeals path to the Tennessee Department of Education, he said.

Supporters of the bill told the committee they want local school districts to decide how to handle enrollment when immigration status is in question. Lambert described the proposal as permissive and said each LEA "may" exercise the authority, adding an administrative appellate route so disputes would be handled at the state level rather than leaving districts solely responsible.

Three witnesses invited by the committee urged rejection or delay. Mauricio Calvo, CEO of Latino Memphis, said Latino Memphis "fully supports the legal and moral arguments against this bill" and asked lawmakers to pause to study costs and operational questions, including whether schools can verify status and what the fiscal and human impacts would be. Jenny Mills McFerrin, assistant director of policy and research at Ed Trust Tennessee, warned the bill could risk federal funding and harm school climate: "That vision isn't possible with House Bill 7 93," she told the committee, citing research linking enforcement-targeted policies to higher absenteeism and lower achievement. Carla McIntyre, who said she attended school in Tennessee as an undocumented child and later became a U.S. citizen, described the personal consequences of excluding children from school and urged members to vote no.

Committee members pressed witnesses and the sponsor on operational details. Questions focused on how districts would verify documents (the amendment lists three categories: U.S. citizenship, in-process citizenship, or legal immigration/visa status), whether districts could afford legal challenges, and how federal programs and state formulas (including recent Education Freedom Scholarship language) would interact with disenrollment. Lambert said the amendment includes an appellate process to TDOE and that fiscal-review questions raised in the fiscal note should be addressed during finance committee review.

Witnesses and several committee members also cited legal risk and precedent. Multiple speakers referenced the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision Plyler v. Doe, which currently prohibits states from denying a free public K–12 education to children based on immigration status; Ed Trust warned the bill could jeopardize federal education funding and referenced Title VI protections. Sponsor Lambert said supporters expect potential litigation and described the bill as intended to give local districts authority and to prompt federal action on immigration policy.

The committee first voted to limit debate and set a hard stop at 6 p.m.; that procedural motion carried 14–4. Members adopted the amendment (amendment code 5269) after the sponsor said it rewrote the bill; the chair announced the ayes had it by voice vote. After further questioning and testimony, the committee voted 11–7 to advance the bill as amended.

The bill would, if enacted as written in committee: permit (not require) an LEA or public charter to request documentation that a student is a U.S. citizen, is in the process of obtaining citizenship, or holds legal immigration/visa status; allow an LEA to charge tuition where a family declines to pay; exempt certain students from compulsory attendance/truancy requirements in specific circumstances set by the amendment; require aggregate reporting (not individual names) to TDOE; and provide an administrative appeal process to TDOE for families and districts. Sponsor Lambert said those procedural safeguards and the appellate mechanism are intended to limit district liability and centralize review at the state level.

Several members and witnesses raised fiscal questions recorded in the committee fiscal note and in testimony: that Tennessee currently budgets hundreds of millions for English learners (witnesses and members cited figures discussed in committee of roughly $235 million to $330 million in certain years and per-pupil spending in the $7,300 range), that two-thirds of Tennessee’s English learners are U.S. citizens, and that estimates of undocumented students in the state vary. Ed Trust warned the bill "could threaten critical resources" and cited a figure in committee testimony that passage might put at risk roughly $1.1 billion in federal education funding; committee members also quoted a 2023 American Immigration Council estimate that undocumented immigrants contribute roughly $915 million in state taxes (figures stated to the committee as reported).

The vote in committee does not by itself change state law; the measure must proceed through additional committees and votes and would be subject to judicial review if challenged. Sponsor Lambert acknowledged litigation is a possibility and said the legislation is designed to return the issue to courts or to spur federal legislative action. "Every state has become a border state," he said, urging local authority for LEAs to determine capacity and enrollment policy.

Votes at a glance: the committee adopted the amendment by voice vote after the sponsor said it rewrote the bill; a procedural motion to close debate to 6 p.m. passed 14–4; final committee passage of HB 793 (as amended) was 11 ayes, 7 nays. The transcript does not include a roll-call listing individual member votes on the final question in the record provided to the committee clerk.

Why it matters: The bill would change which entities may request proof of immigration or citizenship for school enrollment and would let local districts decide whether to charge tuition or disenroll students in specified circumstances. It directly implicates federal precedent (Plyler v. Doe), potential federal funding conditions, and local school operations (enrollment verification, appeals, and possible litigation).