The Department of Justice filed federal lawsuits against Massachusetts and Rhode Island on Wednesday, targeting both states for offering in-state college tuition rates to illegal immigrants while charging higher rates to American citizens from other states.
The twin suits, filed in U.S. District Courts in Boston and Providence, allege that each state's tuition policies violate a provision of federal immigration law that has been on the books for a quarter century. The provision, found in 8 U.S.C. § 1623, bars states from granting postsecondary education benefits to illegal aliens based on residency unless the same benefit is available to all U.S. citizens regardless of where they live.
Congress passed Section 1623 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. The statute is straightforward: if a state lets an illegal immigrant pay in-state tuition because of residency, it must extend the same rate to every American citizen, even those from out of state.
Massachusetts and Rhode Island each enacted laws that, as Breitbart reported, allow certain noncitizens without lawful immigration status to qualify for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. Under these state laws, an illegal immigrant living in Massachusetts or Rhode Island can pay the discounted resident rate, while a U.S. citizen living just across the state line pays the full out-of-state price.
The DOJ argues that arrangement is exactly what Section 1623 forbids.
Attorney General Pam Bondi framed the lawsuits as a matter of basic fairness to American families. In a statement released with the filings, Bondi said the policies force citizens to subsidize benefits for people who are in the country illegally.
"It is unacceptable and illegal for states to give people who came to this country illegally a better deal on college tuition than American citizens from other states."
Bondi added that the Department of Justice "will continue to enforce the law and put the interests of American citizens first." The framing tracks with the broader posture the Trump DOJ has taken toward states whose policies conflict with federal immigration enforcement priorities.
That posture has shown up in other contexts. The DOJ recently gave California a deadline to drop its Glock ban or face a federal lawsuit, signaling a willingness to use litigation as a direct tool against state-level policies the administration views as unlawful.
The federal complaints center on preemption. Federal law sets a floor: states cannot offer residency-based tuition benefits to illegal immigrants unless they open those same benefits to all U.S. citizens. Massachusetts and Rhode Island, the DOJ contends, crossed that floor by creating residency pathways for illegal immigrants that do not extend equally to citizens from other states.
The suits seek injunctive relief, meaning the DOJ wants federal courts to order both states to stop applying the challenged tuition policies. The government is not seeking monetary damages.
Neither lawsuit names individual students or university officials as defendants. The suits target the states themselves and the tuition structures their legislatures created.
Section 1623 has been federal law since 1996, but enforcement has been virtually nonexistent. Multiple states passed laws over the past two decades granting in-state tuition to illegal immigrants, and no prior administration brought suit under the provision. The Trump DOJ's decision to file in two states simultaneously marks the first major federal effort to test the statute in court.
The DOJ has also launched what it calls the largest denaturalization push in U.S. history, targeting individuals accused of obtaining citizenship through fraud. Together, these actions reflect a department that views immigration enforcement as extending well beyond the border and into state capitals, university systems, and courthouses.
Legal observers expect Massachusetts and Rhode Island to mount aggressive defenses. Both states have Democratic attorneys general and political leadership that has publicly supported immigrant access to public benefits. The states could argue that their tuition programs are structured to comply with Section 1623, or they could challenge the federal government's standing and interpretation of the statute.
The financial stakes for families are not abstract. At many public universities, the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition runs into the tens of thousands of dollars over a four-year degree. A U.S. citizen from New Hampshire attending the University of Massachusetts, for example, pays substantially more than a qualifying illegal immigrant who lives in Massachusetts under the state's policy.
That disparity is the core of the DOJ's argument. The department frames it as a straightforward question: should American citizens pay more for a public college education than people who entered the country without authorization?
The question carries political weight in an election cycle where immigration and cost of living dominate voter concerns. The suits give the administration a concrete legal vehicle to press the issue beyond rhetoric.
The Massachusetts and Rhode Island suits fit a pattern. Under Attorney General Bondi, the DOJ has moved aggressively against state and local policies it views as conflicting with federal law or constitutional rights.
In Virginia, the DOJ signaled legal action after the governor moved to restrict federal firearms agents operating in the state. In New York, the department intervened on behalf of Catholic nuns facing prison under a gender identity mandate. In Georgia, the DOJ moved to disqualify a judge in a voter rolls lawsuit.
Each case involves a different area of law. But the throughline is consistent: the Trump DOJ is willing to sue states, challenge judges, and deploy federal litigation power in ways previous administrations avoided.
Both cases are now in federal district court. Massachusetts will litigate in the District of Massachusetts; Rhode Island's case will proceed in the District of Rhode Island. Early procedural motions, including potential state motions to dismiss, could shape the timeline over the coming months.
The central legal question is narrow but consequential. If federal courts rule that Section 1623 means what its plain text says, states that offer residency-based tuition to illegal immigrants will face a choice: extend the same rate to every American citizen, or end the benefit entirely.
Several other states have similar tuition policies on the books. A ruling against Massachusetts or Rhode Island could trigger challenges across the country, turning a pair of New England lawsuits into a national precedent.
Investigators and litigators on both sides will need to establish exactly how each state's tuition program operates, who qualifies, and whether any carve-outs exist that might satisfy the federal statute. Those factual questions will likely drive discovery and shape the arguments at summary judgment.
A law that Congress passed nearly thirty years ago is finally getting its day in court. Whether the courts enforce it as written or find room for the states to maneuver will say a great deal about who sets immigration policy in America, and who pays the price when the answer is unclear.
