- The Justice Department sued New York, Connecticut, and Vermont over in-state tuition policies for undocumented students.
- Total states targeted has reached seventeen as the administration argues these benefits violate federal law.
- Federal officials claim states discriminate against U.S. citizens by offering lower rates based on local residency rules.
The Justice Department sued New York, Connecticut and Vermont on August 10, bringing to 17 the number of states targeted over tuition policies for undocumented students. The complaints argue that the states unlawfully give noncitizens benefits that must be available to U.S. citizens regardless of where they live.
The three cases extend a campaign accelerated under the Trump administration. The states say their programs rely on residency or school attendance requirements, not immigration status, and apply to every student who satisfies those rules.
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said the department’s campaign would continue until the administration’s policy goal is met.
“Our efforts will not cease until President Trump’s promise is fulfilled: illegal aliens will not receive benefits denied to our Nation’s own citizens.”
Woodward also said the government had sued every state in the Second Circuit with a policy the department considers an attempt to evade federal restrictions. The circuit includes New York, Connecticut and Vermont.
The lawsuits rely chiefly on 8 U.S.C. § 1623, enacted as part of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. The provision bars a person who is not lawfully present from receiving a postsecondary benefit based on state residence unless a U.S. citizen or national can receive the same benefit without meeting that residency requirement.
The latest cases complete a campaign across 17 states
The complaints filed August 10 went to federal courts in New York’s Northern District, Connecticut and Vermont. Earlier cases named Massachusetts and Rhode Island in June 2026, Maryland and Virginia in July 2026, and Colorado on August 3, 2026.
The earlier group also includes California, New Jersey, Kansas, Minnesota, Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Illinois. About half of U.S. states have some form of tuition law covering students who meet specified school attendance or residency conditions.
Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Civil Division framed the cases as an equal-treatment dispute.
“This Department of Justice will not tolerate American students being treated like second-class citizens in their own country.”
On August 11, Shumate added:
“This is a simple matter of federal law: colleges cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens.”
The department also invokes the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. Its position is that federal immigration authority preempts state rules that confer postsecondary benefits on people who are not lawfully present.
States defend rules based on attendance and residency
State officials reject the federal characterization of their programs. Many policies use high school attendance, rather than legal residence, as the qualifying standard.
California’s AB 540 is one example. The state describes the rule as an attendance-based measure, while federal lawyers call that approach a “blatant workaround” to the federal statute.
Connecticut Attorney General William Tong responded to the lawsuit in direct terms.
“Note to Trump — stay out of Connecticut. Donald Trump doesn't run UConn or any of our state colleges, and we're not about to let him start.”
Gov. Ned Lamont followed on August 12 by defending the state’s education policy.
“We are making Connecticut the land of opportunity and education, and we will not accept his attempts to turn back the clock on progress.”
Vermont Gov. Phil Scott said the policy supports the state’s workforce and careers.
“We need to do everything we can to. support good careers for all Vermonters.”
At the University of Vermont, the disputed rate is roughly $17,000 for in-state students, compared with nearly $47,000 for students from outside the state. Federal lawyers say that difference disadvantages nonresident U.S. citizens.
Five states have already lost access to the programs
The federal campaign has produced mixed results in court. Judges have blocked or forced the suspension of policies in Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Illinois as of August 2026.
Texas provides the clearest precedent. A federal judge struck down the Texas Dream Act in 2025, ending a policy that had operated since 2001 with bipartisan support.
Illinois faced broader losses. Federal judges struck down not only its tuition policy but also the RISE Act and Illinois DREAM Act, which supplied state-funded scholarships.
The Minnesota case went the other way. In March 2026, a federal judge dismissed a similar lawsuit after finding that the government had not shown the state’s specific “three-year attendance” rule violated federal law. The department appealed that decision.
The cases therefore present different legal questions even though they share the same federal statute. The government must show how each state’s eligibility rule conflicts with the federal requirement.
The lawsuits reach tuition, scholarships and state aid
The government’s Maryland complaint alleges that the state’s program costs taxpayers approximately $9 million per academic year in “unlawful subsidies.” The legal challenge extends beyond the price charged by a college, because state-based loans, grants and scholarships can also determine whether students enroll.
Students who lose those benefits may face out-of-state charges that are two to three times higher than in-state costs. Some also lose access to state loans and grants, increasing the debt needed to remain in school.
Advocacy groups in Connecticut report that college applications have declined amid what they describe as anti-immigrant sentiment and concern about federal enforcement on campuses. Tabitha Sookedeo, executive director of Connecticut Students for a Dream, said students were experiencing “depression and anxiety” as their educational futures became part of the litigation.
The affected population is large. Approximately 525,000 undocumented students attend U.S. colleges, representing 2.4% of the total student population.
Attorney General Pamela Bondi made the administration’s position clear while discussing California and Illinois on July 1, 2026.
“California is illegally discriminating against American students and families by offering exclusive tuition benefits for non-citizens.”
The new complaints put the Second Circuit states at the center of the dispute. Courts will now weigh whether the states’ attendance and residency formulas comply with federal law, or whether they improperly reserve lower tuition and related aid for people who would not qualify under the federal standard.
