The U.S. Department of Justice has intensified its legal efforts against states offering in-state tuition rates to undocumented students, filing complaints against Hawaii, Utah, Arkansas, and the District of Columbia. These recent actions bring the total number of states targeted to 25, encompassing every state with similar laws.
The core issue revolves around two main aspects: state residency provisions that determine tuition rates and separate state scholarship and grant programs that accompany these provisions. Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate emphasized the department’s stance, stating, “This is a simple matter of federal law: colleges cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens.” Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward, Jr. reinforced this position, declaring, “no more placing illegal aliens over American citizens on this Department of Justice’s watch.”
The Financial Implications of Tuition Policies
The financial disparity between in-state and out-of-state tuition is substantial. In the 2025-26 academic year, the average published tuition and fees for in-state students at public four-year schools was $11,950, compared to $31,880 for out-of-state students, according to the College Board’s Trends in College Pricing 2025. This creates a gap of $19,930 annually before considering housing costs.
At flagship universities, the difference is even more pronounced. For instance, Arizona State University’s resident and non-resident rates differ by approximately $14,800. Additionally, undocumented students lack access to federal aid programs such as Pell Grants or Direct Student Loans, necessitating alternative funding sources like cash or private scholarships if reclassified as out-of-state students.
Legal Outcomes and Ongoing Cases
Six states have already faced legal setbacks: Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Illinois, and Kansas. Kansas recently lost its court battle when U.S. District Judge Holly Teeter issued a permanent injunction against KSA 76-731a on September 10, ruling the statute preempted because it conferred educational benefits on undocumented immigrants without extending the same to U.S. citizens. Governor Laura Kelly criticized the outcome, and efforts by students to intervene were denied.
The Fifth Circuit upheld the Texas ruling on September 8, denying petitions for reconsideration of its July 9 decision. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) is seeking further review. Kentucky resolved its case by consent decree on March 31, 2026, with an appeal noted days later. Illinois lost its tuition and related aid provisions on July 24 and did not appeal. Oklahoma’s order dates to August 2025.
Minnesota stands as an outlier, with a district court dismissing the federal challenge on March 27, 2026, finding that federal law does not preempt the state’s eligibility criteria. The government appealed to the Eighth Circuit on May 1. With fifteen cases still active, including those in California, New York, Virginia, Colorado, Maryland, and New Jersey, the legal landscape remains dynamic.
The Legal Foundation and Future Developments
Each complaint filed by the DOJ centers on 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a), a 1996 provision that prohibits states from making unlawfully present immigrants eligible for postsecondary benefits based on residency unless the same benefits are available to citizens regardless of their residence. The DOJ combines this with the Supremacy Clause, seeking declaratory judgments and permanent injunctions. This legal strategy targets residency-based classification rather than immigration status as an eligibility screen, which is why scholarship programs are included in the complaints.
Looking ahead, the Eighth Circuit briefing in the Minnesota appeal and any petitions out of the Texas case will be crucial. States like California and New York, with large affected populations and significant state grant programs, will set the practical stakes. Students in the 25 affected states should prepare for potential tuition changes by pricing the non-resident rate for the next academic year and inquiring about the impact on institutional awards if a court order is issued mid-term.
