Texas has ended a 24-year policy allowing illegal immigrant students to pay in-state tuition at public universities. A federal judge ruled the law unlawful following a joint lawsuit filed by the Texas Attorney General and the Department of Justice under President Trump. The decision will affect tens of thousands of students and marks a major victory for conservatives focused on restoring law and order in immigration policy.
The 2001 Texas Dream Act had enabled illegal immigrant students—commonly referred to as “Dreamers”—to receive in-state tuition if they attended a Texas high school for at least three years and pledged to pursue legal status. Texas was the first state in the nation to pass such a law. However, critics argued the policy gave preferential treatment to non-citizens while legal residents from other states paid significantly higher tuition rates.
On June 4, 2025, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi filed a lawsuit asserting the policy violated federal immigration law. The court swiftly granted their request to enjoin the law without holding a public hearing. Governor Greg Abbott later confirmed that the law had been permanently rescinded.
An estimated 57,000 students in Texas colleges and universities are now expected to face steep tuition hikes. Without in-state status, these students will be charged out-of-state rates, often more than double. Some universities are struggling to determine how to implement the ruling due to a lack of immigration data in their student records.
Supporters of the ruling contend that the policy reversal restores fairness in tuition pricing and upholds federal law. They argue that American citizens and legal residents should not subsidize tuition for those in the country unlawfully. Legal experts defending the state’s move point to the constitutional obligation of states to defer to federal immigration authority.
Opposition groups, including the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), have filed motions seeking to intervene, arguing that students directly affected were denied a chance to participate in the legal process. They claim the legal challenge was rushed and deprived students of due process.
While the court has not ruled on those motions, the swift action by Texas signals a broader shift in immigration enforcement at the state level. Churches and charitable groups may be called upon to assist students facing new financial hardships, though the state maintains it is acting within its legal rights.
