The Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against the state of Minnesota, alleging that the state’s laws providing tuition benefits to undocumented immigrants violate federal law and constitutional principles. The DOJ argues that Minnesota’s policies, which offer free or reduced in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants, are unconstitutional and contradict federal statutes that prohibit higher education institutions from providing benefits to individuals who are not U.S. citizens. This lawsuit follows similar actions by the DOJ against Texas, where the agency successfully challenged a similar policy.
According to the DOJ, Minnesota’s laws unconstitutionally discriminate against U.S. citizens and are in direct conflict with federal law. Attorney General Pam Bondi emphasized that such policies treat Americans as second-class citizens and are a clear violation of the law. The DOJ is demanding that Minnesota cease the enforcement of a law that requires public colleges and universities to offer in-state tuition rates and free tuition based on specific income criteria to undocumented immigrants who maintain state residency.
This legal action is part of a broader initiative by the Trump administration to ensure that taxpayer-funded benefits are not extended to individuals who are not lawful residents. The Trump administration’s executive orders have directed federal agencies to prevent unqualified aliens from receiving taxpayer-funded benefits and to stop the enforcement of state laws that provide in-state tuition benefits to aliens over American citizens.
In Texas, the DOJ successfully challenged the Texas Dream Act, a policy that allowed undocumented immigrants to pay in-state tuition at public colleges. While the state initially complied with the DOJ’s request to stop enforcement, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has intervened in the litigation to defend the policy’s constitutionality, arguing that the DOJ’s actions created uncertainty for students and colleges.
Minnesota’s policy faces similar legal scrutiny as it comes under fire from the DOJ for allegedly violating federal law. The case highlights the ongoing debate over the rights of undocumented immigrants to access public services, including education, and the extent to which states can provide benefits to non-citizens while maintaining the rights of lawful residents.