On March 27, 2026, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez dismissed a federal lawsuit brought by the Justice Department challenging Minnesota’s in-state tuition law for undocumented students. The judge ruled that Minnesota’s policy does not violate federal law because it does not determine eligibility based on state residency. This decision marks a significant victory for Minnesota and validates a policy that has allowed undocumented students who graduate from Minnesota high schools to access in-state tuition rates—saving eligible students roughly $22,462 annually compared to out-of-state rates at the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities. The DOJ had filed the lawsuit on June 25, 2025, arguing that Minnesota’s tuition benefit discriminated against U.S.
Citizens by providing preferential rates to undocumented immigrants. The case, United States v. Walz (0:25-cv-02668, D. Minn.), represented the Trump administration’s effort to challenge state-level education policies that extend benefits to undocumented residents.
Table of Contents
- The Federal Government’s Challenge to Minnesota’s Tuition Law
- Understanding Minnesota’s In-State Tuition Policy
- How the Court Ruled on Federal Law Preemption
- The Financial Impact and Cost Difference
- Implications for Education Policy and Other States
- Jurisdictional Issues and Why the Case Was Dismissed
- The Broader Context and Future of Immigration Policy in Education
The Federal Government’s Challenge to Minnesota’s Tuition Law
The U.S. Department of Justice filed its complaint against Minnesota on June 25, 2025, claiming that the state‘s tuition program for undocumented students violated federal law. The doj‘s core argument was straightforward: by offering in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrants, Minnesota was unlawfully discriminating against U.S. citizens. The lawsuit targeted state officials, naming Governor Tim Walz and the state attorney general as defendants, seeking to force the state to discontinue the practice.
The Justice Department grounded its argument in a specific federal statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1623, which restricts states from offering in-state tuition rates to undocumented students unless they are applying to live in the state. The DOJ interpreted this statute as creating a categorical ban on the type of program Minnesota had operated since 2013. However, this interpretation would prove incorrect when presented to the federal court. The case number 0:25-cv-02668 was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, making it a direct constitutional and statutory challenge to a state law.
Understanding Minnesota’s In-State Tuition Policy
Minnesota enacted its in-state tuition law on May 23, 2013, formally known as the Minnesota Dream Act or Prosperity Act. The law does not base eligibility on state residency status—a critical distinction that becomes important in understanding why the federal lawsuit failed. Instead, the law creates eligibility for students who have attended Minnesota high schools for three or more years and have graduated from a Minnesota high school or obtained a GED in Minnesota. This approach means that an undocumented student who moved to Minnesota in ninth grade, attended three years of high school, and graduated from a Minnesota school qualifies for in-state tuition.
Conversely, a U.S. citizen who recently moved to Minnesota would not automatically qualify unless they also met the three-year high school attendance requirement. The policy recognizes educational continuity and local high school completion as the qualifying factors, not immigration status or citizenship. This distinction proved essential to the judge’s decision to dismiss the case.
How the Court Ruled on Federal Law Preemption
Judge Katherine Menendez’s ruling hinged on a straightforward reading of the federal statute the DOJ cited. The judge wrote that “the plain text of § 1623 is clear: it does not preempt the Minnesota statutes because the Resident Tuition Statute does not determine eligibility for Resident Tuition on the basis of residence.” In other words, Minnesota’s law qualifies students based on high school attendance and graduation—not based on whether they reside in the state, which is what federal law actually prohibits. The judge’s interpretation reflects a narrow but critical reading of federal preemption law.
Section 1623 prevents states from using “residence” as a basis for deciding who gets in-state tuition. Since Minnesota uses “high school graduation or GED completion in Minnesota” as the basis, the statute simply does not apply. This same logic has allowed other states to offer in-state tuition to students based on criteria other than residence, creating a legal pathway that the Trump administration had apparently underestimated.
The Financial Impact and Cost Difference
For a student attending the University of Minnesota-Twin Cities during the 2025–2026 academic year, the difference between in-state and out-of-state tuition is substantial. In-state tuition at the Twin Cities campus cost $18,094 annually, while out-of-state tuition cost $40,556—a gap of $22,462 per year. Over a four-year undergraduate degree, this represents a savings of nearly $90,000 for eligible students.
For undocumented students and their families, this cost difference often determines whether college is financially possible. Students who qualify for in-state rates can work part-time jobs and take loans in a way that might not be feasible if the full out-of-state cost were required. However, it is important to note that undocumented students often cannot access federal financial aid or PLUS loans, meaning even the in-state rate may require significant family resources or private scholarships. The in-state rate makes attendance more feasible but does not eliminate financial barriers entirely.
Implications for Education Policy and Other States
Minnesota’s legal victory creates a national precedent that may influence how other states approach education policy for undocumented residents. Several states have implemented similar policies—offering in-state tuition based on factors like high school graduation or residency duration rather than explicit residency requirements. Judge Menendez’s decision suggests these policies can withstand federal challenges if structured carefully to avoid basing eligibility on “residence” in the way Section 1623 prohibits.
However, this decision does not necessarily prevent future legal challenges. The Trump administration could appeal the dismissal, or pursue different legal theories against other states’ policies. Additionally, Congress could clarify or amend Section 1623 if it wished to prevent states from offering in-state tuition to undocumented students. The dismissal protects Minnesota’s current policy and provides a roadmap for other states, but the broader national debate over education access for undocumented immigrants remains politically contested.
Jurisdictional Issues and Why the Case Was Dismissed
Beyond the merits of federal law, Judge Menendez also identified a jurisdictional problem with the lawsuit. The judge found that the federal government lacked standing to sue the state attorney general and governor because those officials did not have the power to change the state laws in question. In other words, the DOJ had sued the wrong defendants—the problem was not that state officials were refusing to enforce a law, but that the law itself existed as written.
This jurisdictional barrier meant that even if the DOJ had won on the legal merits, the court would have no practical way to remedy the situation by ordering those specific defendants to do anything. The case should have been structured differently, perhaps as a suit against the state itself or through a different procedural mechanism. This technical problem gave the judge an additional reason to dismiss the case beyond the substantive question of whether federal law actually preempted Minnesota’s statute.
The Broader Context and Future of Immigration Policy in Education
This case reflects broader tension between state autonomy in education policy and federal immigration law. Education has traditionally been a state and local matter, while immigration is a federal responsibility. States like Minnesota have claimed the right to decide tuition policy based on educational factors, while the federal government has argued that immigration law should not be circumvented by state policies that effectively grant benefits based on immigration status.
The dismissal suggests that, at least in this federal district court, states retain significant flexibility in structuring education benefits using criteria other than residence or citizenship. However, the political environment around immigration remains volatile, and future administrations may pursue different legal strategies. The decision may embolden other states to enact similar policies, or it may prompt more litigation in different circuits or with different legal theories. For now, Minnesota’s policy stands validated by the federal judiciary.