Tennessee lawmakers are at odds over a bill that would require schools to track and report students’ immigration status.
HB0793/SB0836 originally would have allowed K-12 public schools to refuse undocumented students or charge their families tuition. The Senate passed the measure, but it stalled in the House, until its sponsor, Rep. William Lamberth, R-Portland, amended the proposal – only requiring schools to verify students’ legal status and report their findings to the state government. The House passed the amended bill earlier this month, and, now, the two chambers of the statehouse must reconcile these two versions before it can move forward.
During a Senate session on Thursday, Sen. Bo Watson, R-Hixon, the bill’s co-sponsor, requested that the legislature delay its vote on whether to adopt the House version of the bill or preserve the original Senate proposal. Watson later told reporters that he’s unsure if his colleagues in the Senate would support the amendment since many already approved the original measure that would allow schools to refuse undocumented students.
“I’m trying to figure out what the best path forward is for the Senate,” he said. “The Senate passed the bill, so, obviously the Senate likes its bill. And the Senate should jealously guard the decisions that we make as should the House.”
Watson also said that the House amendment might be a helpful data tool but doesn’t allow schools to alleviate the financial burden that he says undocumented students place on Tennessee schools. He further noted that the Tennessee House has other immigration bills to vote on and he’d like to see how that plays out before he makes any changes to the bill.
Lawmakers in the House scaled down the controversial measure out of concern that it could cost the state $1.1 billion dollars in federal education funding. Watson disagrees – saying that the Trump administration’s immigration policies indicate that it’s unlikely the federal government would strip away funding if the legislature voted to deny education to students without legal immigration status.
Lawmakers introduced the measure during the 2025 legislative session, sparking protests from immigration and education advocates as well as faith leaders throughout the state. Many cited research showing that it would cost the state around $55 million dollars to evaluate every student’s immigration status. Democratic lawmakers said the proposal would lead to increased immigration activity in certain communities.
However, Watson maintains his position that local governments are best suited to determine whether charging undocumented students tuition makes sense based on the the school districts’ finances.
Republican leadership often championed it as a challenge to the Supreme Court ruling Plyler v. Dole, which established the right to an education for all students, regardless of their immigration status.
Although the amendment no longer includes language allowing schools to deny enrollment to undocumented students, some Democratic lawmakers insist that reporting students’ immigration status is a setup to eventually challenge their right to an education. The amendment does note that the number of undocumented students has more than quadrupled since Plyler was decided in 1982.
Watson said he plans to continue negotiations with members of both the House and Senate to determine the next steps to ensure the bill moves forward.
