# data[].attributes.body
In June 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) began suing states with laws that grant in-state residency to undocumented students for tuition purposes claiming that those laws violate federal law by giving a benefit to non-citizens that is not also given to out-of-state U.S. citizens. Some states (Minnesota, Illinois, and Kentucky) are fighting back to preserve in-state tuition for undocumented students, while others (Texas, Oklahoma, and Florida) are surrendering or repealing their laws.

The legal and ethical basis for the DOJ’s challenge is disputed. The DOJ claims that federal law prohibits states from granting post-secondary education benefits based on residence to undocumented immigrants unless the same benefits are available to all U.S. citizens regardless of their residence (8 U.S.C. § 1623). Advocates for in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants argue that these state laws are consistent with federal law pointing out that out-of-state U.S. citizens, who meet the same residency requirements as undocumented students, are also eligible for the in-state tuition rate. Some critics of these lawsuits have accused the recanting states and the federal government of colluding to end their state laws.

This issue has created a crisis of legal and ethical conflicts within higher education, and it is a major topic of discussion and concern among peers in my field of work, government-funded student financial assistance programs. Here in Texas, a court ruling by a federal judge declared the state law unenforceable, but that court ruling does not repeal the law nor remove it from statute. It just keeps the state from acting on the law or enforcing it. This informational Padlet will explore the legal arguments and ethics implicated on both sides of the issue and will evaluate the likelihood of these federal court rulings being overturned in the future.

(8 U.S.C. § 1623)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The average college tuition cost has increased in the 2023-2024 academic year over the prior year across both public and private schools, according to U.S. News data based on an annual survey.

A college's sticker price is the amount advertised as the full rate for tuition and fees before financial need, scholarships and other aid are factored in. Net price is the amount that a family pays after aid and scholarships - usually offsetting the sticker price shock.

The average tuition and fees at private ranked colleges has climbed by about 4% over the last year, according to data for the 2023-2024 school year submitted to U.S. News in an annual survey. At ranked public schools, tuition and fees rose 2% for in-state students and about 1.4% for out-of-staters.

Considering inflation, the year-over-year numbers look a little different. For private ranked colleges, tuition and fees actually decreased by 0.4%. For public ranked schools, there was also a decline: about 2% for in-state students and about 3% for out-of-state students.

Schools reported this data in spring and summer of 2023. Some colleges offer tuition discounts to eligible students: 341 private nonprofit colleges and universities reported an average estimated tuition discount rate of 56.2% for full-time, first-year, first-time students in 2022-2023, according to a study from the National Association of College and University Business Officers.

But the cost of education remains a significant financial challenge for many families, who often underestimate the price.

According to the 2023 Fidelity Investments survey College Savings & Student Debt, 1 in 4 high school students believe the total cost of attendance for one year of college equals $5,000 or less. This number is far below what they're likely to pay at public and private four-year colleges.

The average in-state cost of tuition and fees to attend a ranked public college is nearly 75% less than the average sticker price at a private college, at $10,662 for the 2023-2024 year compared with $42,162, respectively, U.S. News data shows. The average cost for out-of-state students at public colleges comes to $23,630 for the same year.

In addition to tuition and fees, students must also pay other expenses, such as housing, food and books, which can run thousands of dollars a year.

A Look at the Best Value Schools

But sticker prices don't tell the whole story. Private schools can often make up the price gap through tuition discounts and institutional aid.

While Princeton University in New Jersey, for instance, advertised a sticker price of $57,410 for tuition and fees in 2022-2023, the average cost to students after receiving need-based grants that year was about $17,464.

Since 1993, U.S. News has provided information on the Best Value Schools, looking at academic quality and price, and factoring in the net cost of attendance for a student after receiving the average level of need-based financial aid.

Harvard University is the No. 1 Best Value School among National Universities, schools that are often research-oriented and offer bachelor's, master's and doctoral degrees.

Harvard provided need-based grants to 54% of undergraduates. The highly selective Massachusetts school offered an average need-based scholarship or grant award of $65,053 to undergraduates in 2022-2023. That amount exceeded the school's tuition and fees that year of $57,261, sometimes going toward other costs, like room and board.

Some regional schools, including those not as selective as Harvard, also provide significant need-based financial aid.

For example, although Berry College charged $39,376 in tuition and fees last year, 68% of students received need-based grants. The Georgia institution's financial aid awards in 2022-2023 dropped the average net price for students to $25,630.
The data above is correct as of Sept. 20, 2023. For complete cost data, full rankings and much more, access the U.S. News College Compass.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
See the Average College Tuition in 2023-2024

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The average sticker price for in-state public schools is about one-quarter what's charged by private colleges, U.S. News found.

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. Congress

Passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, 8 U.S.C. § 1623, that says states cannot give preferential treatment, like in-state tuition, to undocumented immigrants based on where they live.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Develops federal regulations to carry out immigration-related laws created by the U.S. Congress. There is no DHS regulation to go along with this federal law because the law is largely self-executing and limits the authority of states directly.

U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)

Enforces laws passed by the U.S. Congress through the federal courts.

Texas Legislature

Passed the Texas Dream Act of 2001, 3 Tex. Edu. Code §§ 54.051(m), 54.052(a), that provided in-state tuition and financial aid at Texas public colleges to certain undocumented students who graduated from a Texas high school and had lived in the state for at least three years.

Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB)

Developed state rule 19 Tex. Admin. Code § 21.24, Determination of Residency Status, to carry out the law passed by the Texas Legislature.

Texas Attorney General

Enforces and defends laws passed by the Texas Legislature.

(3 Tex. Edu. Code §§ 54.051(m), 54.052(a))

(8 U.S.C. § 1623)

(19 Tex. Admin. Code § 21.24)

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #3 Federal and State Constitutional Laws

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #3 Federal and State Constitutional Laws

# data[].attributes.body
U.S. Constitution

The DOJ claims that each state’s law that grants in-state residency to undocumented students violates the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Supremacy Clause, (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2), establishes federal laws as being supreme to any conflicting state laws.

Link: https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Texas Constitution

Article I, Section 1 of the Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Tex. Const. art. I, § 1) states that Texas is "subject only to the Constitution of the United States." If a conflict arises between a Texas law and a federal law, that is within the national government's constitutional authority, the federal law will prevail.

Link: https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/TxConst.pdf

(Tex. Const. art. I, § 1)

(U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2)

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #4 Federal and State Statues and Administrative Laws

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #4 Federal and State Statues and Administrative Laws

# data[].attributes.body
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. § 1623)

The U.S. Congress passed this federal law that says states cannot give preferential treatment, like in-state tuition, to undocumented immigrants based on where they live.

Link: https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1623%20edition:prelim)

U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS)

Develops federal regulations to carry out immigration-related laws created by the U.S. Congress. There is no DHS regulation to go along with this federal law because the law is largely self-executing and limits the authority of states directly. The law is enforced through legal challenges brought by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) in the federal court system.

Link: NA

Texas Dream Act of 2001 (3 Tex. Edu. Code §§ 54.051(m), 54.052(a))

The Texas Legislature passed this state law that provided in-state tuition and financial aid at Texas public colleges to certain undocumented students who graduated from a Texas high school and had lived in the state for at least three years.

Link: https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.54.htm#54.051

Determination of Resident Status (19 Tex. Admin. Code § 21.24)

The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board (THECB)

developed this state rule to carry out the law passed by the Texas Legislature. It largely just mirrors the law and establishes certain procedures for Texas colleges to follow to administer the law.

Link: https://shorturl.at/zhbNE

(3 Tex. Edu. Code §§ 54.051(m), 54.052(a))

(8 U.S.C. § 1623)

(19 Tex. Admin. Code § 21.24)

# data[].attributes.body
United States of America v. State of Texas, 2025

A U.S. District Court ruled that the 2001 Texas law granting undocumented persons in-state tuition is unconstitutional because it violates the Supremacy Clause by contradicting the federal law. It ruled the State's law as unenforceable, and it prevents persons, who are not lawfully present in the U.S., from receiving in-state tuition in Texas.

Link: https://shorturl.at/QIXOu

United States of America v. State of Oklahoma, 2025

Just as in the Texas court ruling, a U.S. District Court ruled that the 2004 Oklahoma law granting undocumented persons in-state tuition is unconstitutional on the same basis and stopped undocumented immigrants from receiving in-state tuition in Oklahoma.

Link: https://shorturl.at/ORaoy

United States of America v. Andrew Beshear-Governor of Kentucky, 2025

Just as in the Texas court ruling, a U.S. District Court ruled that the 2015 Kentucky law granting undocumented persons in-state tuition is unconstitutional on the same basis and stopped undocumented immigrants from receiving in-state tuition in Kentucky.

Link: https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1403911/dl?inline

The following court cases are being challenged by the defending states and are undecided:

United States of America v. Tim Walz-Governor of Minnesota, 2025

United States of America v. State of Illinois, 2025

(United States of America v. State of Texas, 2025)

(United States of America v. State of Oklahoma, 2025)

(United States of America v. Andrew Beshear-Governor of Kentucky, 2025)

# data[].attributes.body
There are no federal regulations related to 8 U.S.C. § 1623. The law is considered self-executing and limits the authority of states directly. Its interpretation is guided by the text of the law itself and by court cases. Understanding the law requires examining the statute itself and relevant court decisions. Judicial interpretations on the matter often consider the Supremacy Clause and the extent to which federal immigration law preempts state laws.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #7 Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #7 Local Administrative Law/Policy/Rule

# data[].attributes.body
Colleges are doing their best to adhere to the June court ruling and to follow THECB guidance instructing schools to adjust tuition for undocumented students starting this fall 2025 but did not provide further guidance. Their guidance has been limited to "refer to your own legal counsel for interpretation of the court ruling." Interpretation of the ruling has been inconsistent across Texas. Some students have received little to no guidance from colleges. Others have been incorrectly classified as out-of-state students because of differing interpretations of the ruling. THECB has advised colleges to get help from USCIS to verify a student's lawful presence. Advocates worry that they could expose their students to immigration authorities if they share their information with USCIS.

Austin Community College's website incorrectly states that undocumented students still qualify for in-state tuition.

Link: https://admissions.austincc.edu/residency-information/residency-status-undocumented-students/

Blinn College's website, until September 2025, incorrectly stated that DACA students could not be classified as Texas residents.

Link: https://www.blinn.edu/admissions/residency-information.html

Laredo College has removed all information about state residency for both undocumented and lawfully present immigrants from its website, and it issued an announcement in August 2025 that DACA students cannot be classified as Texas residents at Laredo College.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Texas’ guidance on end of in-state tuition for undocumented students doesn’t clear confusion, advocates say

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The state is being criticized for advising colleges to verify students’ status with immigration authorities, which could put them at risk.

# data[].attributes.body
Information and Training to Students and Staff:

Provide college staff with a live training session so they can ask questions about the legal changes and get answers. It should be recorded for future reference. They should also be provided with a paper handout with facts and references.

Provide students with clear communication on the website and with a personal letter/email to each affected student explaining the college's response.

Provide Individualized Support to Students:

Case manage individual students with lawful presence, such as DACA recipients, to proactively help them submit the necessary documentation to prove their status.

Case manage individual undocumented students to help them understand how the legal change applies to them and proactively help them submit the necessary documentation to continue their enrollment at the college.

Financial Aid Exploration:

Case manage individual undocumented students to help them find scholarship opportunities

In Texas, have a conversation with college leadership to determine how the Texas Public Educational Grant (TPEG) can be used to assist undocumented students. TPEG is a program created by state law but is funded by the college and can be given to nonresidents, including international students (3 Tex. Educ. Code § 56.033(c)).

(3 Tex. Educ. Code § 56.033(c))

# data[].attributes.body
As members of the National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), many schools subscribe to their Statement of Ethical Principles which includes advocating for students and supporting student access to higher education. Higher education institutions are often founded on the principle of serving their communities and fostering economic growth. Ending in-state tuition for undocumented students will force many of these students to drop out and will undermine their connection to their educational institutions.

Advocate for students

Remain aware of issues affecting students and continually advocate for their interests at the institutional, state and federal levels.

Support federal, state and institutional efforts to encourage students, as early as the elementary grades, to aspire to and plan for education beyond high school.

Support student access and success

Commit to removing financial barriers for those who want to pursue postsecondary learning and support each student admitted to our institution.

Link: https://www.nasfaa.org/statement_of_ethical_principles

(National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators, 2017)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
NASFAA members are required to exemplify the highest level of ethical behavior and demonstrate the highest level of professionalism. The following guidelines were last updated by NASFAA’s Board of Directors in November 2017.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #10 Personal Connection to the Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #10 Personal Connection to the Legal and Ethical Standards

# data[].attributes.body
These legal and ethical standards are connected to my personal educational journey in the following ways:

Embracing transparency and clarity

I want to be on the receiving-end of clarity of information and transparency of professional practices, and I also want to be on the giving-end of of these values.

Respecting all individuals

Our shared humanity makes us all worthy of respect, and I value being someone who honors the humanity of others.

Refraining from conflicts of interest

I value abiding by my commitments and always acting in a manner that merits the trust and confidence others have placed in me.

# data[].attributes.headline
Slide #11 Recommendations & Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.subject
Slide #11 Recommendations & Best Practices for Compliance

# data[].attributes.body
Educate yourselves about the laws applicable to this issue and provide that learned information to your college staff through a conversational training and reference material.

Educate your immigrant students with individual case management by providing them with clear, one-to-one communication and with a public explanation of your college's response.

Provide individualized support to your immigrant students and be proactive about helping them to understand how the legal change affects them and helping them to submit the necessary documents for their compliance and continued enrollment.

Assist your immigrant students in finding non-government sources of college funding, such as scholarships from your college or from outside sources.

For Texas colleges, ask your college leadership to develop a policy and procedure for how the Texas Public Educational Grant (TPEG) can be used to assist undocumented students pay for college.

Advocate on behalf your institution and your students for THECB to provide administrative rules and guidance that clearly explains to colleges how they should interpret the legal ruling so that colleges across the state will be responding the same.

# data[].attributes.body
3 Tex. Edu. Code §§ 54.051(m), 54.052(a). (2001, June 16). Tuition rates and determination of resident status. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.54.htm#54.051

3 Tex. Educ. Code § 56.033(c). (2005, September 1). Texas public educational grants. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.56.htm

8 U.S.C. § 1623. (1996, September 30). Limitation on eligibility for preferential treatment of aliens not lawfully present on basis of residence for higher education benefits. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:8%20section:1623%20edition:prelim)

19 Tex. Admin. Code § 21.24. (2008, May 21). Determination of resident status. https://shorturl.at/zhbNE

National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators. (2017, November). Statement of ethical principles. https://www.nasfaa.org/statement_of_ethical_principles

Tex. Const. art. I, § 1. (1876, February 15). Freedom and sovereignty of state. https://tlc.texas.gov/docs/legref/TxConst.pdf

U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2. (1787, September 17). Supremacy clause. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript#6

United States of America v. Andrew Beshear. (2025, September 23). U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Kentucky. https://www.justice.gov/opa/media/1403911/dl?inline

United States of America v. State of Oklahoma. (2025, August 7). U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Oklahoma. https://shorturl.at/ORaoy

United States of America v. State of Texas. (2025, June 4). U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas. https://shorturl.at/QIXOu