The Department of Justice filed federal lawsuits against four states on Wednesday, alleging that Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington violate federal law by offering in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens at public colleges and universities. The suits mark a sharp escalation in the Trump administration's effort to strip public benefits from those living in the country unlawfully.
Each lawsuit targets state laws or policies that allow illegal aliens to pay the same tuition as legal residents, a benefit that can save thousands of dollars per semester compared to out-of-state rates. The DOJ argues these arrangements run afoul of 8 U.S.C. § 1623, a provision of federal immigration law that bars states from granting post-secondary education benefits to illegal aliens unless those same benefits are available to all U.S. citizens, regardless of their state of residence.
Section 1623 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, prohibits states from providing a "postsecondary education benefit" to an alien not lawfully present unless any citizen or national of the United States is eligible for the same benefit. In practical terms, a state cannot offer in-state tuition to an illegal alien while charging higher out-of-state rates to American citizens from other states.
The statute has been on the books for nearly three decades, but enforcement has been sporadic. Multiple states adopted workarounds over the years, often tying tuition eligibility to high school attendance or graduation within the state rather than to immigration status. The DOJ's new suits challenge those workarounds head-on, as Breitbart News first reported.
Arizona voters approved Proposition 308 in November 2022, which allows students who attended an Arizona high school for at least two years and graduated or obtained a GED in the state to receive in-state tuition regardless of immigration status. The measure reversed a previous voter-approved ban. The DOJ contends the proposition violates Section 1623 because it extends a tuition benefit to illegal aliens that remains unavailable to U.S. citizens from other states who did not attend an Arizona high school.
New Mexico's law similarly ties eligibility to in-state high school attendance. Oregon passed its own version in 2013, and Washington State has maintained comparable policies for years. In each case, the DOJ's theory is the same: the state has created a path for illegal aliens to receive discounted tuition that a U.S. citizen from a neighboring state cannot access.
The lawsuits were filed in federal district courts in each respective state. The DOJ is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, meaning it wants courts to declare the state laws unlawful and order the states to stop applying in-state tuition rates to illegal aliens.
The tuition suits fit within a wider pattern of immigration enforcement actions under the Trump administration. The DOJ under Attorney General Blanche has pursued aggressive measures across multiple fronts, including moving to revoke citizenship from immigrants accused of serious crimes such as attempted murder and child sex offenses.
Attorney General Blanche framed the tuition lawsuits as a matter of basic fairness to American citizens and legal residents.
"It is unfair and illegal for states to give benefits to those who broke our laws to be here while hardworking American families from other states are forced to pay more."
The statement captures the core legal and political argument: that states are effectively rewarding illegal entry while penalizing geographic mobility among citizens. A family that moves from Nevada to Arizona, for instance, would face out-of-state tuition rates that an illegal alien who attended an Arizona high school would not.
Officials in the four targeted states are expected to mount legal defenses of their tuition policies. Supporters of in-state tuition for illegal aliens have long argued that the students in question grew up in the state, attended local schools, and contribute to the community. They contend that punishing students for their parents' immigration decisions serves no legitimate policy goal.
Opponents counter that the federal statute is plain on its face: states cannot offer post-secondary benefits to illegal aliens that are not equally available to all U.S. citizens. The legislative history of Section 1623 reflects Congress's intent to prevent states from creating financial incentives for illegal immigration.
The legal battle will likely hinge on how courts interpret the word "benefit" and whether state residency requirements that are facially neutral as to immigration status can survive federal preemption. Some states have previously argued that tying eligibility to high school attendance rather than immigration status means the benefit is not being granted "on the basis of" alienage. The DOJ rejects that reading.
The cases raise questions that extend well beyond tuition rates. If the DOJ prevails, the rulings could affect similar laws in more than a dozen other states that offer some form of in-state tuition to illegal aliens. States including California, Texas, Illinois, and New York have comparable policies, though they were not named in this round of suits.
The decision to target Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington may reflect strategic considerations. Arizona's policy was adopted by voter referendum, which adds a layer of political complexity. Oregon and Washington are deep-blue states unlikely to comply voluntarily. New Mexico's policy has received less national attention but follows the same legal template.
Federal enforcement actions at the state level have intensified across the board. ICE field offices have ramped up operations targeting criminal illegal aliens, with ICE Houston alone arresting 735 criminal illegal aliens in a single month earlier this year. The tuition lawsuits represent a different front in the same campaign: using civil litigation rather than criminal enforcement to dismantle what the administration views as a parallel system of benefits for those in the country illegally.
The financial disparity at the center of the suits is substantial. At Arizona's three public universities, in-state tuition runs roughly $10,000 to $13,000 per year. Out-of-state rates range from $28,000 to $38,000. An illegal alien qualifying for in-state rates under Proposition 308 could save more than $80,000 over a four-year degree compared to a U.S. citizen from a neighboring state.
Similar gaps exist at public universities in the other three states. The cost is ultimately borne by state taxpayers, who subsidize the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition through public funding of their university systems.
Critics of the state policies argue the subsidies amount to a wealth transfer from American taxpayers to individuals who entered or remained in the country in violation of federal law. Defenders respond that educating residents, regardless of status, produces economic returns that benefit the state.
The lawsuits also underscore a growing tension between state governments and the federal executive branch on immigration policy. Several of the targeted states have adopted broader "sanctuary" policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The tuition suits add an education-policy dimension to disputes that have previously centered on law enforcement cooperation and detention.
That friction has played out dramatically in other contexts. In Minnesota, Governor Walz pardoned a convicted child sex offender shortly before a scheduled deportation, prompting fierce backlash from federal officials. The episode illustrated how state executives can use their own authority to frustrate federal immigration enforcement, and how the Trump administration has responded with escalating countermeasures.
The tuition cases present a cleaner legal question than many immigration disputes because Section 1623 directly addresses the specific benefit at issue. Unlike broader preemption battles, the DOJ does not need to argue that state law conflicts with general federal immigration authority. It can point to a statute that expressly prohibits the practice.
The four states will have the opportunity to respond to the complaints in federal court. Early motions are likely to include challenges to standing, arguments about the proper interpretation of Section 1623, and potential constitutional claims under the Tenth Amendment or the Spending Clause.
If any of the cases reach the appellate level, they could produce circuit splits that eventually draw Supreme Court review. The high court has never squarely addressed the scope of Section 1623, and lower courts have offered limited guidance.
The administration has not indicated whether additional states will face similar suits. The DOJ's decision to file four cases simultaneously suggests a coordinated strategy designed to create multiple judicial opinions and increase the odds of a favorable precedent. The fact that the suits span the Ninth Circuit (Arizona, Oregon, Washington) and the Tenth Circuit (New Mexico) means the administration is not placing all its bets in a single appellate court.
Recent federal actions have also highlighted the national security dimension of immigration enforcement. A DACA recipient allegedly involved in a foiled attack plot earlier this year intensified calls for stricter scrutiny of benefits extended to noncitizens, adding political momentum to the administration's legal offensive.
Section 1623 passed with broad bipartisan support in 1996. For most of its existence, it sat largely unenforced while state after state adopted tuition policies that appeared to contradict its plain text. The DOJ's suits represent the first serious federal effort to force compliance.
Whether the courts agree with the administration's reading will shape education policy, immigration law, and the balance of state and federal power for years. The cases also carry a blunt political message: the era of states quietly extending public benefits to illegal aliens while the federal government looks the other way is over, at least for now.
A law that Congress wrote three decades ago is finally getting its day in court. What the courts do with it will say as much about the rule of law as it does about tuition rates.
