The Trump administration just forced six states to stop giving illegal immigrants cheaper college tuition than American citizens — and 15 more lawsuits are still active against states continuing the practice.
Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Illinois, and Kansas have all been taken to court and lost. Each state has been forced to end its in-state tuition programs for illegal migrants and their non-resident children.
The legal victories represent a dramatic shift in enforcement of federal statutes that have technically been on the books for decades but were rarely challenged by previous administrations. The Justice Department’s aggressive pursuit of these cases signals a fundamental reordering of priorities when it comes to higher education benefits and immigration policy enforcement at the state level.
The Department of Justice lost one case in Minnesota, but the ruling is being appealed to the 8th Circuit.
“OVER 30 YEARS AGO, CONGRESS MADE CLEAR THAT STATES CANNOT PUT ILLEGAL ALIENS BEFORE OUR NATION’S OWN CITIZENS.”
A large group of states still offers the special tuition deals — Washington, Oregon, California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Louisiana, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia among them. The DOJ is suing most of them.
These remaining states have defended their policies by arguing they help integrate long-term residents and boost their state economies by creating a more educated workforce. However, the administration contends that such arguments cannot override explicit federal prohibitions, regardless of the policy goals states claim to be pursuing.
In August, the DOJ announced that 21 states total were being hauled into court for giving illegal immigrants and their children cut-rate tuition deals to state-supported colleges and universities.
Federal law prohibits the practice because it’s unconstitutional to offer non-citizens a state-funded benefit that American citizens can’t access. But many states passed laws allowing illegals to get low tuition deals anyway — knowing federal law prohibited it, but assuming no presidential administration would ever dare challenge them.
The legal foundation for the federal challenge rests on provisions that establish clear boundaries between benefits available to citizens and those available to non-citizens. For years, many state legislators operated under the assumption that political considerations would prevent federal enforcement, creating a patchwork system where the same law was interpreted and applied differently depending on geography and local political priorities.
“Over 30 years ago, Congress made clear that States cannot put illegal aliens before our Nation’s own citizens,” Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward, Jr. said in a DOJ statement in August.
“By granting illegal aliens in-state tuition, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, and Arizona are pushing citizens to the side and ignoring federal law. No more. As of today, we have now sued 21 states who we allege were thwarting Congress’s clear prohibition on placing aliens over citizens.”
Woodward added: “Our efforts will not cease until President Trump’s promise is fulfilled: illegal aliens will not receive benefits denied to American citizens.”
The sweeping nature of the enforcement campaign has surprised many observers who expected the administration to pursue a more selective approach, perhaps targeting only the most egregious cases or those in politically favorable jurisdictions. Instead, the Justice Department has filed suit against states across different regions and political landscapes, suggesting the campaign is being driven by legal principle rather than strategic political targeting.
“COLLEGES CANNOT PROVIDE BENEFITS TO ILLEGAL ALIENS THAT THEY DO NOT PROVIDE TO U.S. CITIZENS.”
“This is a simple matter of federal law: colleges cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,” said Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division.
“This Department of Justice will not tolerate American students being treated like second-class citizens in their own country.”
Cases are still ongoing in Minnesota, Virginia, California, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado, New York, Connecticut, Vermont, Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington.
The outcomes of these pending cases will determine whether the administration’s initial legal successes represent an isolated wave of victories or the beginning of a comprehensive nationwide rollback of state-level immigration benefits policies. Legal experts are closely watching how different circuit courts approach the constitutional questions involved, as conflicting rulings could eventually force the Supreme Court to weigh in on the balance between state autonomy and federal immigration authority.
No more in-state tuition for illegal aliens in Kansas. pic.twitter.com/XNP2QHwSWt
— Brett Shumate (@AAGShumate) September 10, 2026
