A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 22.1-2.2, relating to public schools; right to free public elementary and secondary education; discrimination based on immigration status prohibited; requirements; civil cause of action.
HB912 would add a new section to the Code of Virginia establishing that no child may be denied a free public elementary or secondary education because of the actual or perceived immigration or citizenship status of the child or the child’s parents. The bill bars school boards and public schools from refusing enrollment, excluding students from programs or activities, or using policies that have the effect of discouraging participation based on immigration-related status. It also prohibits schools from requesting or collecting immigration-status information except where required by law, from treating immigration or citizenship status as directory information, and from threatening or making disclosures about a student’s or parent’s status to immigration or law enforcement agencies except as allowed by law.
The bill further requires public schools to adopt procedures for handling law-enforcement requests to enter school facilities, including review by designated officials, documentation of interactions, and notice to parents or adult students when immigration-enforcement access is requested, unless a warrant or subpoena limits disclosure. It creates a civil cause of action for aggrieved parties, allowing injunctive relief, damages, temporary restraining orders, and attorney’s fees, with a two-year limitations period. The Department of Education would have to issue guidance and training materials by August 1, 2026, and each school board would need to adopt and post compliant policies and train principals and administrators before the 2026–2027 school year.
In practical terms, the bill would expand state-level protections for students and families regardless of immigration status and would impose new compliance duties on school boards, principals, and administrators. It would also affect how schools handle student records, family information, and interactions with law enforcement, while preserving disclosures required by state or federal law and communications permitted under federal immigration-information statutes.
The overall sentiment reflected in the available context appears supportive, as the bill was incorporated into another Education measure by voice vote, suggesting it was accepted without recorded opposition in that setting. No committee transcript or roll-call vote is provided, so there is no detailed record of debate or dissent in the materials supplied.
The main points of potential contention are likely to center on immigration enforcement, school safety, privacy, and the scope of school obligations. Supporters would likely emphasize equal access to education and protection from discrimination, while opponents may object to limits on information-sharing with law enforcement, the new procedural requirements for schools, and the private right of action that could expose school divisions to litigation.
HB912 would add § 22.1-2.2 to the Code of Virginia and create new statutory protections against discrimination in public elementary and secondary schools based on actual or perceived immigration or citizenship status. It would require school boards to adopt policies, train staff, and establish procedures for law-enforcement access and immigration-related requests, while also authorizing civil lawsuits for violations. The bill would primarily affect school boards, public schools, students, and parents, and would interact with FERPA and federal immigration-information laws.
The available legislative context suggests a generally favorable or noncontroversial posture toward the bill, because it was incorporated into another Education bill by voice vote. No recorded floor or committee debate is included, so there is no evidence in the provided materials of organized opposition or divided voting. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to be framed as a civil-rights and student-protection measure.
Likely areas of contention include whether schools should be restricted from collecting or sharing immigration-related information, how far schools should go in limiting cooperation with immigration enforcement, and whether the bill’s notice and procedural requirements could interfere with school operations or law-enforcement access. Another possible point of dispute is the private civil cause of action, which could lead to damages and attorney’s fees against school divisions. Supporters are likely to focus on equal access, privacy, and anti-discrimination protections, while critics may emphasize enforcement, administrative burden, and federal-state coordination issues.