The Trump administration has now challenged laws across 25 states and the District of Columbia that provide in-state tuition or other higher education benefits
The Trump administration has now challenged laws across 25 states and the District of Columbia that provide in-state tuition or other higher education benefits to some undocumented students, arguing the policies illegally give them benefits that can be denied to American citizens who live in other states.
The Justice Department announced earlier this month that it had completed its nationwide series of challenges after filing its final four lawsuits against Hawaii, Arkansas, Utah and the District of Columbia.
The department says it has now sued every state with a law providing in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants under circumstances it contends violate federal law.
At the heart of the dispute is a federal law enacted in 1996.
Under 8 U.S.C. 1623, a person who is not lawfully present in the United States cannot receive a postsecondary education benefit based on state residency unless U.S. citizens are eligible for a benefit of at least the same amount, duration and scope regardless of whether they live in that state.
Esteban Elizondo, associate editor at Campus Reform, joined The National News Desk to discuss the lawsuits and what the policies can mean for students.
"The school that you're sending your kid to is treating your child as a second-class citizen," Elizondo argued.
His characterization reflects his position on the policies. States defending such programs have historically structured eligibility around criteria that can include attendance at and graduation from an in-state high school rather than immigration status alone, and supporters argue the programs expand educational opportunities for students who grew up in those states.
The Justice Department, however, argues that states cannot use those eligibility structures to circumvent federal law when an undocumented student can qualify for lower tuition while an American citizen from another state cannot.
"This is a simple matter of federal law: colleges cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens," Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate said when the department announced its final round of lawsuits.
Elizondo said the potential financial difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition can be substantial.
"They are giving discounts in excess of $100,000 over four years to some illegal aliens that you wouldn't be eligible for if you're not a resident of that state," Elizondo said.
The exact difference varies significantly by institution and state.
The Justice Department cited Arizona State University as one example when it sued Arizona in August. DOJ said the difference between resident and nonresident tuition there was roughly $24,000 annually and alleged that at least 432 undocumented students received in-state rates during the fall 2025 semester, representing approximately $10.5 million in reduced tuition compared with the nonresident rate.
The administration's lawsuits also extend beyond tuition in some states.
DOJ has challenged laws providing financial aid, scholarships and other assistance to undocumented students. Its lawsuits against states including New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Massachusetts and Rhode Island seek to block both reduced tuition and certain financial assistance programs.
"It's not just tuition, it's grants. It's work-study jobs," Elizondo said.
He argued those benefits can leave some undocumented graduates with less debt than similarly situated students who are U.S. citizens but do not qualify for the same programs.
"An illegal alien is going to graduate with significantly less debt than an American citizen because of the huge discount that they're getting, and they're going to be competing for the same jobs as American students and as American graduates," Elizondo said.
That outcome is not uniform: tuition, aid eligibility and individual student debt depend on the particular state, institution, program and student's circumstances.
The legal fight centers on Section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, now codified as 8 U.S.C. 1623.
"It's a 1996 federal law," Elizondo said. "It essentially says you cannot provide illegal aliens in-state tuition benefits if you do not grant those same benefits to American citizens that aren't residents of that state."
The statutory language says an undocumented immigrant may not receive a postsecondary education benefit "on the basis of residence within a State" unless a U.S. citizen is eligible for an equivalent benefit regardless of state residency. The provision applies to benefits provided beginning July 1, 1998.
The Trump administration has argued that the Supremacy Clause makes conflicting state policies unenforceable.
DOJ's campaign began in 2025 with a challenge to Texas' long-standing in-state tuition law. The administration then brought similar cases across the country, including against Virginia, California, Minnesota, New Jersey, Maryland, Colorado and New York.
By Sept. 10, the Justice Department said six lawsuits — involving Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Illinois and Kansas — had resulted in favorable court orders permanently blocking and declaring unconstitutional the challenged provisions. Other cases remained pending.
Elizondo said those results could provide a roadmap for the remaining cases.
"The Trump Department of Justice has been successful in six states so far of the 25 that they've sued," Elizondo said. "And the next step would be to go after the rest of those 19 states."
Some states have opted to resolve the litigation rather than continue defending their laws.
Kansas, for example, joined the Justice Department in seeking a consent decree after the federal government sued in June. Nebraska similarly joined DOJ in seeking to permanently block its own tuition and financial assistance provisions.
The administration argues the cases are ultimately about equal treatment of American citizens.
In its challenge against Virginia, DOJ argued that state laws providing qualifying undocumented students with in-state tuition and financial assistance conflict with federal requirements because an American citizen living outside Virginia cannot necessarily receive the same benefits.
Elizondo said the issue becomes particularly significant because state taxpayers help support public colleges and universities.
"If you paid taxes in one of these states, then you're essentially funding a program that's benefiting illegal aliens against your own neighbors," Elizondo said.
Supporters of in-state tuition policies for undocumented students counter that many recipients have lived and attended school in their states for years, that expanding access to higher education can increase graduates' earning potential and tax contributions, and that denying resident tuition can make college financially inaccessible.
The legal question now before courts across the country is whether the specific state programs conflict with the federal restriction.
Elizondo predicted that continued victories by the administration could effectively end the challenged practices nationwide.
"It's going to very likely be a state-by-state fight," Elizondo said.
The Justice Department has made clear it intends to pursue that fight.
"We have now sued every state across our Nation that has a state law or regulation granting illegal aliens in-state tuition," Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said Sept. 10. "We look forward to favorable court rulings."
