A federal judge heard arguments in Minneapolis on Wednesday over whether to dismiss a Trump administration lawsuit challenging Minnesota’s policies granting in-state tuition to some undocumented immigrants.
The case, brought by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, alleges that Minnesota has been providing in-state tuition to undocumented Minnesota residents while failing to provide this same benefit to nonresident citizens — which the Justice Department says is a violation of federal law. The Justice Department filed the lawsuit in June, and has also filed challenges to similar laws in California, Texas, Kentucky, Illinois and Oklahoma.
At issue is a provision of a 1996 immigration reform law, signed by then-President Bill Clinton, that states “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State (or a political subdivision) for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit (in no less an amount, duration, and scope) without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”
But lawyers for the state argue that Minnesota’s method for determining who can receive in-state tuition and financial aid does not hinge on residence, and thus the statute in question does not apply.
“Congress clearly did not prohibit undocumented immigrants from receiving in-state tuition — they limited the basis on which they could be eligible,” said Joseph Richie, arguing for the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office.
Sean Skedzielewski, arguing for the Trump administration, disputed Richie’s distinction.
“Through a short chain of syllogisms based in Minnesota law, Minnesota is in fact considering residence,” he said.
The Minnesota Dream Act, which passed in 2013, provides eligibility for in-state tuition and financial aid to undocumented students, who don’t qualify for federal financial aid. In 2023, the Minnesota Legislature passed the North Star Promise Act, a last-dollar scholarship program that extends free tuition at state colleges and universities to students whose family income is below $80,000 — including those who qualify for in-state tuition through the Minnesota Dream Act.
In the 2023-2024 school year, about 500 students received state grants under the Minnesota Dream Act — less than 1% of all Minnesota applicants for financial aid. Some of the students who received funds under the Minnesota Dream Act may have Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), Temporary Protected Status, or another form of legal status.
Students are eligible for the Minnesota Dream Act if they attend and graduate from a Minnesota high school, register for the Selective Service, and, if a pathway to lawful immigration status exists, demonstrate that they have applied for it.
These criteria extend to some non-residents as well, the state argued. A student from a neighboring state who attends high school in Minnesota, a boarding school student who lives elsewhere but attends school in Minnesota, and a graduate who attended high school in Minnesota but no longer lives there could all qualify for the Minnesota Dream Act. At the same time, some longtime Minnesota residents who, for example, graduated from high school elsewhere do not qualify.
“The Minnesota Dream Act criteria are both broader and narrower than a Minnesota residency requirement, sweeping in some nonresidents and excluding some residents,” Richie wrote in a memorandum arguing the case should be dismissed.
But Skedzielewski pointed out in a reply brief that Minnesota statutes use the phrase “resident student” and “resident tuition” to describe the benefits available to those eligible for in-state tuition.
In court Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez asked Richie whether it made a difference that the Minnesota statute uses the word “resident.”
“None at all,” he replied, pointing out that Congress has its own definition of residence: a general abode or dwelling place.
“Minnesota’s internal administrative labels,” he said, “do not determine whether someone’s dwelling place is in Minnesota.”
RELATED STORIES
Menendez also pressed both parties on division of powers. Richie argued that the federal government changing Minnesota’s tuition policies would raise concerns under the 10th Amendment, which guarantees states’ rights, and violate a longstanding “anti-commandeering doctrine” preventing the federal government from controlling the action of states. He also questioned whether the federal government was asserting that all U.S. citizens should then have in-state tuition in Minnesota, which he described as an overreach.
Skedzielewski said that not all U.S. citizens needed to receive in-state tuition, but that residence could not be the basis for allowing some undocumented students to receive in-state tuition while out-of-state citizens do not qualify. He also said that the federal government has “broad and undoubted power” under the Constitution to manage immigration, and the statute was not regulating states, he said.
“Both on its face and as applied, it’s regulating aliens,” he said.
Menendez will issue an opinion after considering the arguments.
Youth react
Three leaders from the youth committee of Communities Organizing Latine Power and Action (COPAL) — Vshin Yang, Jordy Guallpa, and Giselle Martinez-Izea — watched the legal arguments in the 14th-floor courtroom.
Guallpa, who is studying finance at Metropolitan State University, said he took issue with the federal government’s position that Minnesota was discriminating against U.S. citizens.
“We see that citizens are receiving more help than immigrants, is what we believe, because they are able to receive federal aid,” he said. “People who are recipients of the Dream Act — undocumented immigrants — can’t” receive federal aid.
Guallpa receives financial aid through the North Star Promise Act.
“I would say that it’s the reason why I’m in school right now, because without it, I wouldn’t be able to afford college,” he said. He expressed concern that the challenge to the North Star Promise Act could also jeopardize benefits for citizens who qualify, like him.
Both Yang and Izea-Martinez said many people they knew had benefited from the two programs.
“It definitely has been something that a lot of my friends have needed to be able to go to school,” Izea-Martinez said. “I’d say it’s especially important in the right for undocumented students and students in general to be able to receive higher education.”
“If this were to be removed, it would just destroy a really huge pathway, to not only attend [college], but also get into careers,” Yang said.
Guallpa said the federal government’s crackdown on undocumented immigrants, as well as people with legal status like Temporary Protected Status, amounted to “systematic racism.”
“They just want to strip away their help,” he said. “We want to give our best efforts to make sure that every Minnesotan gets to see the same help as we do.”
