How Texas’ Controversial In-State Tuition Law for Undocumented Students is Shaping the Future of Education

In Texas, thousands of undocumented students have long enjoyed in-state tuition, a policy that began 20 years ago, providing many families with the opportunity for affordable higher education. Each year, thousands of young people have had the chance to attend public universities in the state, benefiting from in-state tuition rates under the Texas Dream Act. This law has been a lifeline for many children from immigrant families, offering them not just an education, but a chance to become an integrated part of society. However, with the intervention of the Trump administration, this policy has dramatically changed in 2025. The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against the state, claiming that the policy violated federal law. Ultimately, a Texas judge ruled to overturn this crucial benefit, striking a blow to the hopes of many students.

The central issue in this controversy is whether the Texas policy of offering in-state tuition to undocumented students is illegal and violates the rights of U.S. citizens. U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi made it clear that the department would "ensure that American citizens are not treated as second-class citizens anywhere in the country." This statement has sparked widespread debate, with immigration rights advocates and educators stepping forward to defend undocumented students.

The policy in Texas was originally designed to help those undocumented students who grew up in the state. They attended local K-12 schools and became deeply rooted in their communities. The Dream Act allowed these students to receive an affordable education, making higher education accessible and helping them integrate into society. Many students, such as Maria, a typical example, had the opportunity to attend college under the in-state tuition rates. Maria was born and raised in Texas, and her parents, though undocumented, had worked tirelessly to give her the best life they could. Thanks to the Dream Act, she was able to attend a Texas university at an affordable cost. But now, with the policy being rescinded, Maria faces the harsh reality of unaffordable tuition, a burden that, for a student from a low-income family, is almost impossible to carry.

For many students like Maria, this change represents a massive setback. Advocates for the policy point out that these undocumented students have not only attended Texas schools but have long contributed to the local community. Some are already working full-time in essential fields such as teaching, nursing, and engineering. These students have become an integral part of the workforce, and the policy helped foster their success. Revoking this benefit, they argue, deprives these young people of the chance to thrive and contribute to society.

Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, emphasized in an interview that the lawsuit was deeply flawed, stating, "These policies do not offer preferential treatment to undocumented students but ensure fairness for those who have deep ties to the community." Her position reflects that of many educators who argue that educational opportunities should not be denied based on immigration status. They believe that such policies foster fairness and allow students to reach their full potential, regardless of their legal status.

A typical example of a student impacted by this policy is Maria, whose dream of becoming a doctor was made possible through this very act. Maria came to Texas as a young child, grew up here, and attended Texas public schools, just like thousands of others. Her parents, despite their undocumented status, made sure she received a good education. The Texas Dream Act allowed her to pay in-state tuition, a benefit that allowed her to attend college without the overwhelming financial burden that out-of-state tuition would have placed on her family. With this law overturned, Maria’s future is now uncertain. She could either face skyrocketing tuition fees or give up on her college education entirely, effectively crushing her dreams.

Critics of the policy change argue that Texas’ law has always been about helping local students, not about giving undocumented individuals an unfair advantage over U.S. citizens. According to statistics, about 92% of those benefiting from in-state tuition in Texas are U.S. citizens. The argument from the Department of Justice, that undocumented students should not receive benefits that are unavailable to out-of-state U.S. citizens, overlooks the fact that the law was designed to support students who have lived in Texas their entire lives. These are young people who are already deeply integrated into the state, and many of them are future leaders in the community.

Eric Holguin, director of UnidosUS in Texas, pointed out that the policy is not skewed in favor of undocumented students. "The Department of Justice’s argument is that any benefit given to undocumented students must also be given to out-of-state U.S. citizens, but this is already happening," he said. "The real problem here is that the policy serves to keep families in Texas and help them grow and thrive."

Moreover, as Patchco notes, the average Dream.US scholarship recipient, who benefits from this in-state tuition policy, came to Texas when they were just four years old. They grew up in Texas, attended K-12 schools, and thanks to the Texas Dream Act, they had the opportunity to study at a Texas college and succeed. Today, many of these students are teachers, nurses, engineers, and even employees at Fortune 500 companies in Texas, contributing to the state’s workforce. These students are now facing the daunting prospect of losing their access to affordable education.

This issue has larger implications beyond Texas. The Trump administration's actions are part of a broader effort to challenge similar policies in other states. In April of this year, President Trump issued an executive order aimed at cracking down on sanctuary cities. The order directs the U.S. Attorney General to "take appropriate action to block the enforcement" of any state or local law that "favors foreigners over U.S. citizens," including laws that provide in-state tuition benefits to foreign nationals but not to U.S. citizens from out of state.

While the Texas lawsuit may seem like an isolated case, it is part of a larger trend. Some legislators in states such as Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Texas have proposed bills to eliminate in-state tuition for undocumented students. So far, Florida is the only state to have passed such a law. In Texas, attempts to eliminate this benefit have not yet been successful. For example, a bill in the Texas Senate to eliminate in-state tuition for undocumented students failed to pass, and a House bill requiring undocumented students to prove that they have applied for permanent residency before receiving in-state tuition benefits was also defeated in committee.

This legal battle, however, is far from over. Even before the court ruling, experts warned that the decision would set a precedent for other states with similar policies. According to Ahilan Arulanantham, a professor at UCLA Law School and co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy, the ruling in Texas may not have a direct impact on other states like California that use different standards for in-state tuition eligibility. He argued that Texas’ use of residency as a criterion made its policy more vulnerable to legal challenges than policies in other states.

However, even if the ruling does not affect other states, the loss of in-state tuition benefits for thousands of Texas’ undocumented students will have profound consequences. According to the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, Texas is the second-largest state in terms of enrolling undocumented students in higher education, after California. Around 57,000 undocumented students are currently enrolled in Texas’ colleges and universities, and many of them are now at risk of losing their chance to attend college altogether.

“This will make it extremely difficult for thousands of young people who were educated in Texas public schools to afford higher education,” Arulanantham said. "Texas has a large population of long-term undocumented youth who are either integrated into the state's economy or being shut out entirely."

Although the legal ruling in Texas is final, the larger issue remains. The educational opportunities available to these students should not be dictated by their immigration status, but by their potential. Education is a basic human right, and it should not be restricted based on where someone was born or their legal status. The debate in Texas raises significant questions about fairness, social justice, and the future of immigrant youth in America.

Ultimately, whether or not this policy change stands, the fact remains that these students represent the future of America. They are the next generation of workers, leaders, and contributors to society. By denying them access to education, we are not only limiting their potential but also limiting the potential of our nation as a whole. As we move forward, we must ask ourselves: Do we want to build a future where the doors to education are closed to young people simply because of their immigration status, or do we want to foster an environment where everyone, regardless of their background, has the opportunity to succeed?