DOJ Challenges Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington In-State Tuition

• The U.S. Department of Justice has filed lawsuits against Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington to block state laws granting in-state tuition and financial aid to noncitizen students.
• The DOJ argues these state policies violate federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1623, by offering benefits to noncitizens based on in-state resident status.
• States like Arizona contend their laws are constitutional because eligibility is tied to high school attendance and graduation within the state, not residency during college.
• Over 3,600 noncitizens in Arizona could qualify for in-state tuition, with Arizona State University students without legal status receiving an estimated $10.5 million in reduced tuition last year.
• The outcome of these federal challenges will significantly impact state educational policies and could set a national precedent for in-state tuition for noncitizen students.

The outcome of these federal challenges will significantly impact state educational policies and could set a national precedent for in-state tuition for noncitizen students.

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has launched a series of federal lawsuits against Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington, seeking to halt state laws that provide in-state tuition and financial aid to noncitizen students. These legal actions, initiated by the Trump administration, target statutes that the DOJ contends violate federal law by granting benefits to individuals without permanent legal status, effectively prioritizing them over U.S. citizens.

Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward, Jr. articulated the federal government's stance, asserting that Congress explicitly prohibited states from placing "illegal aliens before our nation’s own citizens" over three decades ago. He argued that by extending in-state tuition, these four states are disregarding federal mandates and marginalizing citizens. Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate further emphasized this point, stating that educational institutions cannot offer benefits to noncitizens that are not equally available to U.S. citizens.

At the core of the DOJ's challenge is the federal preemption doctrine, specifically citing 8 U.S.C. § 1623. This statute generally prohibits states from offering noncitizens preferential treatment based on their residency within the state. The federal government argues that the in-state tuition and financial aid provisions in Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington contravene this federal prohibition.

However, the states' laws incorporate distinct criteria. Arizona's Proposition 308, enacted in 2022, allows public universities to offer in-state tuition to any individual, regardless of legal status, who completed at least two years of high school education and obtained a diploma or equivalent in Arizona. These students are also eligible for financial aid. Similarly, New Mexico's 2005 law extends in-state tuition and financial aid to all students who attended high school for one year and graduated in the state, irrespective of their legal status. Oregon and Washington's statutes include an additional requirement: students must demonstrate an intention to become a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident, alongside having resided in the state during their secondary education.

States like Arizona are prepared to defend their policies, arguing that their laws are structured to avoid direct conflict with federal statutes. Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, in a 2025 letter, affirmed the constitutionality of the state's law. Her spokesperson, Taylor Richie, clarified that Arizona's criteria for in-state tuition are tied to where a student attended and graduated high school, not their residency status during college. This distinction, they contend, places the law outside the scope of 8 U.S.C. § 1623.

The financial and demographic impact of these policies is significant. An estimate by the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting suggests that over 3,600 noncitizens could qualify for in-state tuition in Arizona. Data from Arizona public universities indicates that at least 720 noncitizens have already received in-state tuition, with 432 of those attending Arizona State University. The DOJ estimated that ASU students without legal status received approximately $10.5 million in reduced tuition during the previous year. An Oregon Department of Justice spokesperson has also publicly committed to defending their state's program against what they described as the federal administration's "hateful agenda," underscoring the strong state-level commitment to these long-standing policies, some of which have been in effect for decades.

These federal lawsuits against Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington represent a significant challenge to state autonomy in setting educational policies, particularly concerning in-state tuition for noncitizen students. The outcome of these cases will not only determine the future of current tuition and financial aid policies in the four targeted states but could also establish a precedent for similar state laws nationwide.

The legal battles highlight the ongoing tension between federal immigration law and state-level initiatives to provide educational access. The Department of Justice's focus on 8 U.S.C. § 1623 and its interpretation of "preferential treatment" for noncitizens based on residency will be a critical point of contention. The rulings will have far-reaching implications for educational institutions and state governments across the country that offer or are considering offering state tuition benefits to non-citizens.

Lawyers advising state governments or educational institutions in Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, or Washington must monitor these federal lawsuits closely, as their outcome will determine the legality of current in-state tuition and financial aid policies for non-citizen students and could set a precedent for similar state laws nationwide.

Source: Original reporting via Courthouse News Service