DOJ Sues New York, Connecticut, and Vermont Over In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students

The U.S. Department of Justice has escalated its legal campaign against state-level immigration policies, filing federal lawsuits on Monday against New York, Connecticut, and Vermont. The suits seek to block laws and regulations that allow undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition rates at public colleges and universities. The filings mark a significant expansion of the administration's effort to dismantle state programs that offer financial benefits to noncitizens.[1][2][6]

The core of the Justice Department's argument rests on a federal statute that prohibits states from making undocumented immigrants eligible for postsecondary education benefits based on residency, unless U.S. citizens from other states are eligible for the exact same benefits. The DOJ contends that the state programs in question unconstitutionally discriminate against U.S. citizens who reside outside of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, as those students are required to pay significantly higher out-of-state tuition rates.[2][5][7]

"This is a simple matter of federal law: colleges cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens," Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate of the DOJ's Civil Division said in a statement accompanying the filings. Shumate asserted that the department "will not tolerate American students being treated like second-class citizens in their own country," framing the state laws as a violation of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause.[2][3][7]

The lawsuits represent a broader, systematic effort by the Trump administration to claw back state-level protections for undocumented residents. With Monday's filings, the Justice Department has now sued 17 states over their in-state tuition policies, methodically working through jurisdictions that have enacted such laws over the past two decades.[1][4]

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward stated that the department has now sued every state within the jurisdiction of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals that provides these benefits. He characterized the state policies as an attempt to "thwart Congress's clear prohibition by placing alien over citizen," and vowed that the administration's efforts would continue until undocumented immigrants are denied benefits that are not universally available to U.S. citizens.[1][5]

The targeted states have long defended their policies as economically pragmatic and essential for educational equity, arguing that the benefits are legally based on high school attendance and graduation rather than immigration status. In New York, the Senator José Peralta New York State DREAM Act, passed in 2019, allows students to qualify for state-administered financial aid and in-state tuition if they attended a New York high school for at least two years, earned a diploma, and filed an affidavit stating they are seeking to legalize their status.[3]

Connecticut and Vermont maintain similar frameworks. Connecticut passed a law in 2011 allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition if they graduated from a high school within the state. Vermont law prohibits the University of Vermont from discriminating against students based on immigration status when determining eligibility for in-state tuition, and extends state-funded financial aid to residents regardless of their federal immigration status.[2]

Supporters of these state laws argue that they prevent qualified students who grew up in the state from being priced out of higher education. According to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal, roughly 525,000 undocumented students are currently enrolled in colleges and universities across the United States. Advocates contend that integrating these students into the higher education system ultimately strengthens the state's workforce and tax base.[1][4]

The legal landscape surrounding these policies remains highly fractured, with courts delivering mixed rulings on the federal government's challenges. The Justice Department has previously succeeded in blocking similar tuition programs in states including Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Illinois, leading to the termination of decades-old programs like the Texas Dream Act.[1][4]

However, other states are actively fighting the lawsuits and securing victories in lower courts. In March, a federal judge dismissed a similar DOJ lawsuit against Minnesota, ruling that the federal government failed to prove the state was violating federal law because Minnesota's benefits are granted based on three years of high school attendance rather than residency. The Justice Department is currently appealing that decision.[3]

Beyond the immediate impact on tuition rates, the new complaints also challenge state policies that provide direct financial aid, scholarships, and student loans to undocumented students. New York officials stated they are reviewing the lawsuit, while the university systems for the three states have not yet issued formal responses to the litigation.[1][3]

The outcome of these cases could fundamentally alter the financial accessibility of higher education for hundreds of thousands of students nationwide. As the administration continues to file suits across different federal circuits, the conflicting lower court rulings increase the likelihood that the Supreme Court will eventually have to resolve whether states can condition tuition benefits on high school attendance without running afoul of federal immigration statutes.[1][4]