The Justice Department sued Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington on Thursday, arguing that state tuition and financial-aid policies unlawfully give certain benefits to illegal immigrants while denying comparable treatment to U.S. citizens who live elsewhere.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
The Justice Department expanded its legal campaign against state tuition policies Thursday, filing lawsuits against Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington over laws that allow certain illegal immigrants to qualify for reduced college tuition or financial assistance.
The department contends that the four states are improperly giving benefits to illegal immigrants that are unavailable to U.S. citizens who do not live in those states.
According to the DOJ, the challenged laws “unconstitutionally discriminate against U.S. citizens who are not afforded the same reduced tuition rates or scholarships.”
Federal officials also argued that the policies encourage foreign nationals to enter the United States illegally by offering educational benefits after they establish residency in a participating state.
The four lawsuits are part of a broader Trump administration effort to challenge state programs that distinguish between illegal immigrants who live within a state and American citizens who reside elsewhere.
The Oregon complaint lays out the administration’s central legal argument.
“Illegal aliens present in the United States are not eligible for postsecondary education benefits based on state residency unless those same benefits are also offered to all American citizens, regardless of their state of residence,” the complaint said.
The filing also cited executive orders President Donald Trump signed during his second term directing that government policies must “not confer greater benefits to illegal aliens present in our Nation than to U.S. citizens.”
The Justice Department additionally pointed to provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act that it says restrict access to “certain public benefits intended for U.S. citizens.”
In Oregon, the government argues that the state has created an unlawful distinction by allowing an illegal immigrant who meets Oregon residency requirements to obtain lower tuition while an American citizen living in another state must pay the substantially higher nonresident rate.
“Oregon law rewards an illegal alien present in our Nation with eligibility for in-state tuition, based on residency within Oregon, while explicitly denying eligibility for resident tuition rates to U.S. citizens who are not Oregon residents,” the complaint stated.
The difference between resident and nonresident tuition can amount to thousands of dollars annually, making the classification financially significant for students and their families.
Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward Jr. said Thursday that the administration intends to continue challenging policies that it believes favor illegal immigrants over American citizens.
Woodward said the administration will target state laws and other arrangements under which illegal immigrants receive benefits that are “denied to American citizens.”
The Arizona case includes data the Justice Department says demonstrates the scale of the policy there.
According to an investigative report cited by the DOJ, approximately 3,600 illegal immigrants could qualify for in-state tuition each year under Arizona law.
During the fall 2025 semester, approximately 720 illegal immigrants received resident tuition rates, the department said.
The difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition in Arizona was approximately $24,000, according to the DOJ.
The lawsuits against New Mexico and Washington raise similar arguments.
Federal prosecutors contend that those states allow illegal immigrants who meet state requirements to obtain lower tuition while American citizens residing outside the state are charged nonresident rates.
Thursday’s filings bring four additional states into an expanding series of lawsuits pursued by the Justice Department over college tuition benefits.
The DOJ previously sued Minnesota, Virginia, California, New Jersey, Kansas, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado, New York, Connecticut and Vermont over comparable policies.
The department said cases brought in Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Illinois resulted in what it described as “favorable results.”
Those proceedings permanently barred the five states from providing reduced tuition rates to illegal immigrants under the challenged policies, according to the Justice Department.
The lawsuits against New York, Connecticut and Vermont were filed earlier in August.
The administration has not prevailed in every case.
In March, a federal judge dismissed the Justice Department’s challenge to Minnesota’s tuition policy, rejecting the administration’s argument that federal law displaced the state’s authority over eligibility for resident tuition.
U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez found that Minnesota’s system was not limited to residents in a way that automatically excluded U.S. citizens from other states.
“Under Minnesota’s statutory scheme, nonresidents can—and do—qualify for resident tuition: by living in a neighboring state and attending Minnesota high schools, attending a Minnesota boarding school, or attending and graduating from a Minnesota high school before moving out of state,” Menendez wrote.
The judge said those exceptions undermined the federal government’s contention that the Minnesota law created the type of residency-based benefit prohibited under the statute cited by the administration.
“So even if the Resident Tuition Statute contained a de facto residency requirement, ‘a citizen or national’ is eligible for Resident Tuition without regard to that individual’s residence,” Menendez wrote.
The Minnesota ruling illustrates a key legal question underlying the Justice Department’s broader campaign: whether individual state tuition programs actually provide a residency-based benefit to illegal immigrants that federal law requires states to extend equally to U.S. citizens nationwide.
The Trump administration maintains that the challenged laws cross that line and has continued filing cases despite the Minnesota setback.
Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon and Washington now become the latest states required to defend their policies in federal court.
The governors’ offices in all four states did not immediately respond Thursday to requests for comment.
Original article
Comments