The suits argue the policies violate the Supremacy Clause and federal law by extending benefits to undocumented immigrants that aren't available to U.S. citizens residing out of state, continuing a campaign DOJ launched following an April 2025 executive order.
Results so far have been mixed: several states (Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Illinois) have ended their tuition-equity policies amid the litigation, while at least one challenge, in Minnesota, was dismissed at the district court level and is now on appeal — leaving the legal landscape for tuition-equity laws increasingly contested and unsettled as more states are added to the docket.
In Texas, House Bill 1403, otherwise known as the Texas Dream Act, was recently reversed by a federal judge and the Texas Attorney General after deeming it unconstitutional for giving undocumented students access to in-state tuition and state financial aid opportunities. The ruling will greatly affect the state’s economy, workforce, and the aspirations of students and families of immigrants.
The legislation has been a focus of undoing since its inception. The act is legal protection for immigrants came to the U.S. as children but still face the possibility of deportation. The Dream Act – in some states – allows undocumented immigrants to attend their states of resident colleges using in-state tuition rates. This year, the Department of Justice sued the state of Texas and won, leaving immigrant students with fewer educational choices and less access to professional opportunities.
Two advocacy groups, Students for Affordable Tuition and La Union del Pueblo Entero, along with Austin Community College filed an appeal to reverse the decision. Oscar Silva, a University of North Texas student was also named on the lawsuit explained to keranews.org that “This law has made my education possible,” Silva said in the statement. “Without it, college would’ve been out of reach for me as a first-generation college student. Because of this one Texas law, I was allowed to pay in-state tuition at public universities and join my high school classmates in college. I have been able to pursue several college degrees and build upon the academic foundation that’s allowed me to support a future for me and my family.”
Luis Castillo Vela, director of communications for LUPE, explained on keranews.org the impact the ending of the Act makes on the immigrant community and future. “As college students prepare to start school this week across the state, we are thinking about all of those who are having to put their dream of a higher education on hold because of the financial hurdles resulting from the repeal of the Texas Dream Act.”
Austin Community College released a statement that said, “remains focused on supporting all students and the community we serve” and would follow the law while continuing its mission to provide “accessible, high-quality education and opportunities for all.”
In Arizona, the law was approved by voters in 2022 through Proposition 308. Unlike some of the other state statutes DOJ has challenged, Arizona's eligibility isn't based on the student being a state resident. It is based on having graduated from an Arizona high school or obtained a GED and having attended an Arizona high school for at least two years. Arizona's Attorney General is already calling DOJ's lawsuit baseless.
According to the DOJ, in fall 2025, at least 720 undocumented students received in-state tuition at Arizona public colleges and universities, including 432 at Arizona State University. Using ASU's roughly $24,000 resident/nonresident tuition difference, DOJ estimates that undocumented students received approximately $10.5 million in reduced tuition at ASU alone.
According to the American Immigration Council, students eligible for the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals enter college to study in the fields of healthcare, science, technology, engineering, and math. With an estimated 525,000 undocumented students in college, making up 2.4% of the nation's postsecondary students.
In Illinois, Federal Judge David W. Dugan also ruled to reverse similar legislation in the state. Judge Dugan said the act was “unconstitutional and invalid.” The President Trump nominee
One of the state leader’s vocal oppositions to the ruling with his opinion of where the state was headed. Interim U.S. Attorney for the South District of Illinois, Steven D. Weinhoeft, says, “Illinois has an apparent desire to win a ‘race to the bottom’ as the country’s leading sanctuary state. This policy treats illegal aliens better than U.S. citizens living in other states and incentivizes even more illegal immigration, all on the taxpayer’s dime.”
The Dream Act of Maryland is also under scrutiny by the federal government. It’s estimated that nearly $9 million has been saved by immigrant students in the state.
With this latest string of suits, the DOJ brings its total count of challenged states to 21.
