Justice Department Sues Hawaii, Arkansas, Utah and D.C. Over In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students, Bringing Total Jurisdictions Sued to 25
The four complaints, filed September 10, argue the tuition policies are preempted by a 1996 federal law; Arkansas's attorney general said he agrees with the Justice Department, while the other three jurisdictions have not conceded.
Two Complaints, One Split Ruling
On September 10, 2026, the Justice Department filed four lawsuits in a single day, against Hawaii, Arkansas, Utah and the District of Columbia [1][2]. Each one lets some immigrants without legal status pay the lower, in-state rate at public colleges [1]. With these filings, DOJ has now sued 25 states and jurisdictions on the same legal theory [2][3].
The government's argument rests on one 1996 law, 8 U.S.C. §1623(a). It says a person who is in the country unlawfully can't get a college benefit "on the basis of residence" in a state unless every U.S. citizen gets that same benefit, no matter where they live [2]. Translate that: a state can't charge its own undocumented resident the cheap rate while charging a citizen from Idaho or Ohio the expensive out-of-state rate. At the University of the District of Columbia, DOJ says that gap runs more than $4,000 a semester [3].
Two federal judges have already looked at this exact question and landed on opposite answers. In March 2026, a judge dismissed DOJ's case against Minnesota. In July, another judge sided with DOJ and permanently blocked Illinois's tuition break [11][12][13]. That split is the real fight hiding underneath all 25 lawsuits, and it comes down to four words in the statute.
What "On the Basis of Residence" Actually Means
The states being sued don't argue that giving undocumented students a discount is fine on its own terms. They argue their laws don't work the way DOJ says they do. Minnesota's law, for instance, isn't about where you live now — it's about attending a Minnesota high school for three years and graduating there [11][12].
That distinction matters because a U.S. citizen who went to a Minnesota high school and later moved to Florida would still qualify for the same in-state rate. So, the states argue, the law never singles out residence at all, and §1623 was never triggered in the first place. Judge Katherine Menendez agreed with that reading and dismissed DOJ's Minnesota case on March 27, 2026 [11][12]. DOJ has appealed [9].
Four months later, a different judge looked at Illinois's similar law and ruled the other way. On July 24, 2026, Judge David Dugan permanently blocked Illinois's tuition and state financial aid provisions for undocumented students [13]. Two judges, one statute, two opposite conclusions — and that's exactly the kind of disagreement that tends to end up at the Supreme Court [9][14].
A Cheap Lawsuit, A Costly Choice
There's a practical reason DOJ keeps filing the same lawsuit against state after state: it's inexpensive. The department has been reusing the same complaint template across jurisdictions, which makes each new filing low-cost to produce even as it builds toward a nationwide legal reckoning [22].
For the states on the other end of that lawsuit, losing doesn't mean a modest fix. A state found in violation really only has two options under the law: end the in-state benefit for undocumented students, or extend the in-state rate to every U.S. citizen in the country [2][20]. The second option would blow a hole in university budgets, since out-of-state tuition from other students helps subsidize the discounted seats for in-state residents.
That's why, in practice, every state that's lost or settled has chosen the first option. Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Nebraska and Kansas have all entered consent judgments — settlements filed as binding court orders — ending the benefit [2][14]. Illinois was ordered to do the same [13]. The legal fight is framed as being about the meaning of a statute, but the real-world remedy only ever moves one direction.
Who Loses, and Who's Left Out of the Count
For the students affected, the number isn't abstract. Out-of-state tuition at public universities commonly runs two to three times the in-state rate, and undocumented students can't get federal Pell Grants or federal student loans to help cover the difference [20]. For many, the in-state rate is the only thing that makes college possible at all.
Advocacy groups including MALDEF, TheDream.US and the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration put the number of students already affected by completed cases at more than 120,000 [10]. That figure comes from the advocacy groups themselves, not from a government count, and it's worth noting these organizations exist specifically to expand college access for immigrant students [10][14][15].
There's also a carve-out that narrows who's actually at stake. In the Texas settlement, DACA recipients, holders of Temporary Protected Status, and parolees all kept their eligibility for in-state tuition [16]. The group losing access is specifically students with no lawful status of any kind — often the group with the fewest legal or political options to push back.
A Republican State, Sued by a Republican Administration
Not every defendant in this sweep is playing the role coverage might expect. Arkansas's attorney general's office has said it agrees with the Justice Department: federal law preempts the state's tuition law, and the law shouldn't be enforced [7]. That's a defendant siding with the plaintiff suing it.
Utah complicates the story further. Its tuition law, H.B. 144, was signed on March 26, 2002, by a Republican-led state government [19]. Now a Republican administration's Justice Department is suing a Republican-signed law in a Republican state, which doesn't fit neatly into a red-state-versus-blue-state narrative. Hawaii and D.C.'s offices did not immediately comment on the new suits [2].
Coverage of the filings split along familiar lines. Outlets on the right, including Townhall and The Epoch Times, led with the fairness framing and largely left out DOJ's Minnesota loss. Outlets on the left, including The Washington Post and Honolulu Civil Beat, centered the students affected and gave less space to the statutory text driving the cases [9]. Notably, searches turned up no substantial coverage from major non-Western outlets like Al Jazeera, the BBC or the Guardian — a silence that reflects how this dispute is being treated as domestic administrative law abroad, not a sign of consensus one way or the other.
What Happens Next
Twenty of the 25 jurisdictions DOJ has sued remain in some stage of litigation, settlement talks, or appeal [2][11][13][14]. The Minnesota case is now before an appeals court, and if that ruling conflicts with Illinois's outcome, the disagreement between circuits could be the very thing that puts the underlying question before the Supreme Court [9].
Whatever the courts eventually decide, the tuition bill itself doesn't vanish. It either stays with the state, shifts onto the student, or the student doesn't enroll at all [20]. For now, 25 lawsuits sit at different points on that path, with Arkansas already leaning toward settlement and Hawaii, Utah and D.C. yet to formally respond [2][7].
Summary
On September 10, 2026, the U.S. Justice Department sued Hawaii, Arkansas, Utah and the District of Columbia[1][2]. Each of the four lets some undocumented immigrants pay the lower in-state college tuition rate[1]. DOJ says those policies are blocked by a 1996 federal law and by the Constitution's Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law override conflicting state law[1][2]. The four filings bring the number of states and jurisdictions DOJ has sued on this theory to 25 — every one it says offers the benefit[2][3].
The law at the center is 8 U.S.C. §1623(a). It says a person not lawfully in the country cannot get a college benefit "on the basis of residence" in a state unless a U.S. citizen gets that same benefit no matter where the citizen lives[2]. In plain terms: a state may not charge an undocumented resident the cheap in-state rate while charging a citizen from another state the expensive out-of-state rate. At the University of the District of Columbia, DOJ says that gap is worth more than $4,000 a semester[3].
States that have fought back do not defend giving undocumented students a special deal. They argue their laws do not key on residence at all. Minnesota's law, for example, turns on attending a Minnesota high school for three years and graduating — something a U.S. citizen who later moved away also qualifies for[11][12]. On March 27, 2026, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez agreed and dismissed DOJ's Minnesota case[11][12]. DOJ has appealed[9]. On July 24, 2026, U.S. District Judge David Dugan ruled the other way and permanently blocked Illinois's tuition and state aid provisions[13]. That split — whether these laws are about residence or about where you went to high school — is the real dispute.
The four new defendants are not lined up together. Arkansas's attorney general's office said it agrees with DOJ that federal law preempts the state law and that the state law should not be enforced[7]. The offices for D.C., Hawaii and Utah did not immediately comment[2]. Utah is a Republican-led state whose tuition law, H.B. 144, was signed back in March 2002[19].
The Event
On September 10, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice filed four separate civil complaints — against Hawaii, Arkansas, Utah and the District of Columbia — challenging laws and rules that let certain immigrants without legal status pay in-state college tuition[1][2]. The complaints ask federal courts to declare the policies preempted by 8 U.S.C. §1623(a) and invalid under the Supremacy Clause, and to bar their enforcement[1][2]. The Hawaii complaint targets University of Hawaii Administrative Rule HAR 20-4-8(g), which lets a noncitizen establish residency after 12 months of physical presence[17]. The Arkansas complaint targets Act 844 of 2019; the Utah complaint targets H.B. 144 of 2002; the D.C. complaint targets tuition rates at the University of the District of Columbia[1][3][19]. With these filings, DOJ has sued 25 states and jurisdictions on this theory[2][3].
Undisputed Facts
- The four complaints were filed on September 10, 2026, and brought DOJ's total to 25 states and jurisdictions sued over in-state tuition policies[1][2][3].
- The governing statute, 8 U.S.C. §1623(a), was enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996[18].
- DOJ has obtained consent judgments — settlements entered as court orders — from Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, Nebraska and Kansas[2][14].
- On March 27, 2026, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez dismissed DOJ's case against Minnesota, holding §1623 did not preempt a law keyed to three years of Minnesota high school attendance and graduation[11][12]. DOJ appealed[9].
- On July 24, 2026, U.S. District Judge David Dugan permanently enjoined Illinois's in-state tuition and state financial aid provisions for undocumented students[13].
- In the Texas consent judgment entered June 4, 2025, in-state eligibility was narrowed to students with lawful presence; DACA recipients, TPS holders and parolees kept access[16].
- Utah's tuition law, H.B. 144, was signed on March 26, 2002, under a Republican-led state government[19].
- The Arkansas attorney general's office said it agrees with DOJ that federal law preempts the state law and that the state law should not be enforced[7].
- DOJ's D.C. complaint says the in-state and out-of-state tuition gap at the University of the District of Columbia is worth more than $4,000 a semester[3].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- One statute, two readings
- Everything turns on four words in §1623(a): 'on the basis of residence.' DOJ reads any local-schooling requirement as residence in disguise. States read residence narrowly, so a high-school-attendance rule falls outside the statute. Two federal judges have now split on exactly this — Minnesota in March, Illinois in July[12][13].
- The remedy only runs one way in practice
- A state found in violation has two legal fixes: cancel the benefit, or give every U.S. citizen in the country the in-state rate. The second would gut public-university finance, since out-of-state tuition subsidizes in-state seats. So compliance always means cancellation[16][20].
- Litigation as a docket strategy
- Filing in all 25 jurisdictions using one complaint template is cheap for DOJ and guarantees conflicting appellate rulings[22]. A circuit split is the standard route to Supreme Court review, which would settle the question nationally in one decision.
- The affected group is smaller than the rhetoric
- Consent judgments have preserved access for DACA recipients, TPS holders and parolees[16]. The people who actually lose are students with no lawful status at all — the group with the least ability to organize, sue, or leave.
Material realityTwenty-five states and jurisdictions have been sued; five have settled by consent judgment, one lost at trial, one won and is on appeal, and the rest are pending[2][11][13][14]. The money at stake per student is real and immediate: DOJ puts the D.C. gap at more than $4,000 a semester, and at many public universities the out-of-state rate is two to three times the resident rate[3][20]. Undocumented students cannot get federal Pell Grants or federal student loans, so the state rate is often the only thing making enrollment possible[20]. Advocacy groups count more than 120,000 students already affected by the completed cases[10] — a figure from those groups, not a government tally. The policies themselves are old and bipartisan in origin: Texas passed its version in 2001, Utah in March 2002[16][19]. Whatever any court decides, the tuition line item does not disappear; it shifts from the state to the student, or the student stops enrolling.
Narrative as a weaponThree groups are working hardest to set the frame. DOJ wants you to see a plain federal statute being ignored by 25 governments, with a citizen from another state paying more than a noncitizen next door — a fairness story with a legal anchor. Immigrant-rights organizations (MALDEF, TheDream.US, the Presidents' Alliance) want you to see students raised locally being priced out of the only country they know; they supply most of the impact numbers in circulation, including the 120,000 figure, and they are funded advocates, not neutral counters. Right-leaning outlets amplify the fairness frame and mostly omit DOJ's Minnesota loss; left-leaning outlets amplify the student-impact frame and mostly underplay the actual text of §1623(a). The detail that resists every frame is Utah: a Republican state, sued by a Republican administration, over a law a Republican governor signed in 2002.
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asDOJ's case starts with the text, not with immigration politics. Congress wrote §1623(a) in 1996 and meant it to do something. Its reading: if a state gives a resident without legal status the in-state rate, it must give that same rate to any U.S. citizen in the country. States did not do that. So the benefit is unlawful[1][2]. DOJ also argues that laws keyed to 'three years of local high school' are residence rules wearing a costume — you cannot attend a local high school for three years without living there. Accept that workaround, DOJ says, and the statute means nothing[18]. A third argument is incentive: cheaper college for people here unlawfully rewards unlawful entry and pulls against federal immigration policy[2][8].
WhyThe administration wants uniform federal control over immigration-linked benefits and a visible, state-by-state enforcement record. Suing all 25 jurisdictions at once also builds a circuit split that pushes the question toward the Supreme Court[9][14].
Impact on themDOJ has already won five consent judgments and one permanent injunction, and lost once at the district level[11][13][14]. Each new filing costs little; the department reuses the same complaint template across states[22].
Frames it asTheir strongest argument is narrow and textual, not emotional. §1623 bars benefits given 'on the basis of residence.' Their laws, they say, are not based on residence — they are based on finishing high school in the state. A U.S. citizen who went to high school in Minnesota and now lives in Florida still qualifies, so no citizen is disadvantaged and §1623 is never triggered[11][12]. Judge Menendez accepted that reading[12]. Second, they argue these are core state powers: setting tuition at state colleges is classic state and local control over state money, and Congress did not clearly strip it. Third, on the merits, states say a young person raised and schooled locally who is priced out of college is a worse outcome for the state's own economy than one who graduates and works[10][21].
WhyStates want to keep control of their own university pricing and to protect students already enrolled. For Democratic-led jurisdictions, defending is also a way to contest federal immigration policy in court[21].
Impact on themIf DOJ wins, a state faces a hard choice. It can end the benefit, or it can extend in-state rates to every U.S. citizen nationwide — which would cost far more than the program it was defending[2][20]. In practice, states end the benefit.
Frames it asTheir case is about people, and about who actually pays. These are students who grew up in the state, went to its public schools, and in many cases have no other home country they know[15]. The tuition difference is not a discount — it is the line between enrolling and not enrolling. Out-of-state rates at public universities routinely run two to three times the in-state rate, and these students cannot get federal loans or Pell Grants[20]. Advocates also argue the fairness claim is backwards: their families pay state sales and property taxes that fund those same universities[20]. And they note the practical carve-out — DACA recipients and others with lawful presence keep the benefit in Texas, so the group actually hit is the one with the fewest options[16].
WhyThese groups exist to preserve and expand college access for immigrant students; they are advocacy organizations funded to litigate and lobby on that side, not neutral analysts[14][15].
Impact on themAdvocacy groups say more than 120,000 undocumented college students have already lost in-state access through the Texas, Oklahoma, Nebraska, Kentucky and Illinois outcomes — a figure that comes from those groups, not from a government count[10]. In Hawaii, one University of Hawaii advocate's older estimate put the affected group at a few hundred students at most[17].
Frames it asThis is the group §1623 was written for, and their argument is simple enough to state in one line: a student from Idaho pays the full out-of-state price at a Utah school while a classmate without legal status pays the resident price[8][18]. They do not claim the undocumented student is undeserving. They claim the ranking is indefensible — that citizenship should never leave you worse off in a public benefits queue than unlawful presence does. Supporters add that state colleges are subsidized by federal taxpayers too, through research funding and student aid programs, so the 'we pay state taxes' answer is incomplete[18].
WhyThis side is largely represented by conservative legal and media organizations rather than an organized student bloc; no class of out-of-state students has been the named plaintiff in these suits[18].
Impact on themThe remedy DOJ seeks does not lower anyone's tuition. Courts have ended the benefit for undocumented students rather than extending in-state rates to citizens nationwide[13][16]. So the practical gain for out-of-state citizens has been equal treatment, not cheaper college.
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 3.9
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Courthouse News Service | U.S. center, legal trade press | 1 | "Hawaii, Arkansas, Utah and DC sued over in-state tuition for immigrants" — filing-first, notes which offices declined to comment. | Puts 'preferential' in quotation marks rather than adopting it, and reports the non-responses instead of filling them with inference. Minimal spin. |
| UPI | U.S. center, wire service | 2 | "DOJ sues Hawaii, Arkansas, Utah, D.C. over in-state tuition laws" — bare who-did-what. | Neutral to a fault: relays DOJ's characterizations of the state laws without giving the states' §1623 counter-reading equal room. |
| Deseret News | U.S. center-right, owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints | 2 | "DOJ files lawsuit against Utah over state law providing in-state tuition for undocumented students" | Neutral construction, and notable for the context it supplies: Utah's H.B. 144 is a 2002 Republican-era law, which complicates the red-state/blue-state frame most national coverage uses. |
| The Washington Post | U.S. left-of-center | 3 | "DOJ has sued 21 states over in-state tuition for undocumented students" (August tally piece) — the campaign's scale is the story. | Frames the suits as a sweep against students and foregrounds the Minnesota win. The text of §1623(a) — the strongest part of DOJ's case — gets less space than its consequences. |
| Honolulu Civil Beat | U.S. left-of-center, Hawaii nonprofit newsroom | 5 | "Trump Lawsuit Targets Undocumented University of Hawaiʻi Students" | 'Trump Lawsuit' and 'Targets' put the president, not the statute, at the center — and cast students rather than the state rule as the defendant. Strong local detail on HAR 20-4-8(g). |
| The Epoch Times | U.S. right, founded by practitioners of Falun Gong | 6 | "Justice Department Sues 3 States and DC Over In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants" | Uses DOJ's preferred term throughout, but does real reporting the louder outlets skipped — it obtained the Arkansas attorney general's statement siding with DOJ. |
| Townhall | U.S. right, opinion-heavy news site | 8 | "DOJ Sues Hawaii, DC, Arkansas, Utah Over Illegal Aliens' Tuition Breaks" | 'Illegal aliens' and 'tuition breaks' both frame the policy as an undeserved handout before any facts arrive. The Minnesota dismissal — DOJ's one loss — is absent. |
References
- The Department of Justice Files Complaints Against Hawaii, DC, Arkansas, and Utah Over Preferential Treatment for Illegal Aliens — U.S. Department of Justice · U.S. federal government — party to the litigation
- Hawaii, Arkansas, Utah and DC sued over in-state tuition for immigrants — Courthouse News Service · U.S. center; subscription legal trade press
- Justice Department sues UDC over in-state tuition rates for undocumented immigrants — WTOP · U.S. center; commercial D.C. news radio
- DOJ sues Hawaii, Arkansas, Utah, D.C. over in-state tuition laws — UPI · U.S. center wire service
- DOJ sues Hawaii over laws granting in-state college tuition to undocumented immigrants — Hawaii News Now · U.S. center; Gray Media local TV
- DOJ files lawsuit against Utah over state law providing in-state tuition for undocumented students — Deseret News · U.S. center-right; owned by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
- Justice Department Sues 3 States and DC Over In-State Tuition for Illegal Immigrants — The Epoch Times · U.S. right; founded by practitioners of Falun Gong
- DOJ Sues Hawaii, DC, Arkansas, Utah Over Illegal Aliens' Tuition Breaks — Townhall · U.S. right; Salem Media opinion-heavy news site
- DOJ has sued 21 states over in-state tuition for undocumented students — The Washington Post · U.S. left-of-center; owned by Jeff Bezos
- Undocumented Students Face Loss of In-State Tuition — Inside Higher Ed · U.S. center-left higher-education trade press
- DOJ Loses Lawsuit Over Minnesota In-State Tuition Policies — Inside Higher Ed · U.S. center-left higher-education trade press
- Judge dismisses DOJ lawsuit challenging in-state tuition for undocumented students in Minnesota — The Hill · U.S. center; Washington political trade press
- Court blocks in-state tuition for undocumented students in Illinois — Higher Ed Dive · U.S. center; Informa-owned B2B trade press
- In-State Tuition Litigation Updates — Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration · Advocacy organization of college presidents; funded to expand immigrant college access — a party-aligned tracker, not a neutral docket
- MALDEF, TheDream.US, and Presidents' Alliance React to Latest Four DOJ Lawsuits Against State Tuition Equity Policies — MALDEF · Latino civil-rights litigation organization; opposes the DOJ suits
- What to know about Texas ending in-state tuition for undocumented students — The Texas Tribune · U.S. center-left nonprofit state newsroom; donor-funded
- Trump Lawsuit Targets Undocumented University of Hawaiʻi Students — Honolulu Civil Beat · U.S. left-of-center; Hawaii nonprofit newsroom founded by Pierre Omidyar
- Illinois illegal immigrant tuition scheme struck down by judge — The College Fix · U.S. right; student-journalism project of the conservative Student Free Press Association
- Dream Center Frequently Asked Questions (H.B. 144) — University of Utah · Public university; a defendant-side institution in the Utah dispute
- Basic Facts About In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students — National Immigration Law Center · Immigrant-rights legal advocacy organization; supports tuition access
- Oregon, Washington plan to defend in-state tuition for immigrant students — KLCC · U.S. center-left; NPR member station
- Complaint, United States v. Washington (Case No. 2:26-3041) — U.S. Department of Justice · U.S. federal government court filing — the template used across these suits