A federal judge has ruled that Minnesota’s in-state tuition policy for undocumented students does not violate federal law, dismissing a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration’s Department of Justice in June 2025. On March 27, 2026, U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez of the District of Minnesota issued her decision in United States v. Walz, determining that the state’s approach—which bases in-state tuition eligibility on attending a Minnesota high school for at least three years rather than on immigration status or state residency—constitutes a lawful educational policy. This decision protects Minnesota’s longstanding Dream Act framework, which has allowed undocumented students to access affordable higher education since 2013.
The ruling represents a significant victory for immigrant education advocates and sets an important precedent about how states can structure tuition assistance programs without running afoul of federal law. The core of Judge Menendez’s reasoning focused on what actually triggers the tuition benefit: high school attendance in Minnesota, not residency or immigration status. Because the state applies the same tuition rate to any student—citizen, permanent resident, or undocumented—who completed three years of Minnesota high school education, the DOJ’s claim of unlawful discrimination could not be sustained. This distinction matters greatly when comparing Minnesota’s policy to similar cases in other states, such as Texas, where the tuition policy explicitly tied benefits to state residency, creating a more defensible basis for federal challenge.
Table of Contents
- What Did the DOJ Claim Against Minnesota’s Tuition Policy?
- How Did Judge Menendez Rule on Discrimination and What Legal Standard Matters Here?
- What Is Minnesota’s Dream Act and How Does the Tuition Policy Actually Work?
- What Recent Changes Expanded Educational Opportunities for Undocumented Students in Minnesota?
- What Federal and State Tensions Underlie Cases Like This Lawsuit?
- Why Did the Original DOJ Lawsuit Fail in Finding Evidence of Discrimination?
- What Does This Ruling Mean for Other States and Future Tuition Policy?
What Did the DOJ Claim Against Minnesota’s Tuition Policy?
The Department of Justice, operating under the Trump administration, filed its lawsuit in June 2025 alleging that Minnesota’s decision to offer in-state tuition rates to undocumented students violated federal law. The government’s core argument was that extending this benefit to non-citizens while restricting it based on immigration status or residency created unlawful discrimination. From the DOJ’s perspective, allowing undocumented immigrants to access the same educational pricing as U.S. citizens—particularly when some American citizens from neighboring states would pay higher out-of-state rates—constituted unfair federal policy violation.
However, this argument overlooked a critical element of Minnesota’s law: it doesn’t mention immigration status at all. The Prosperity Act of 2013, which created the framework, based eligibility entirely on educational attendance criteria—specifically, three consecutive years at a Minnesota high school with graduation or GED completion in the state. This means a Canadian citizen, a visa holder, or a person without legal status all receive identical treatment if they meet the high school attendance requirement. The DOJ had to prove that the law intentionally or practically discriminated against U.S. citizens to win its case, but Judge Menendez found insufficient evidence for this claim.
How Did Judge Menendez Rule on Discrimination and What Legal Standard Matters Here?
Judge Menendez’s decision hinged on a fundamental principle: the law must be evaluated based on what it actually requires, not on who might benefit incidentally. Minnesota’s statute does not differentiate based on citizenship or immigration status—it creates a single, uniform standard applied equally to all students. For the DOJ to succeed, it would have needed to demonstrate that U.S. citizens were somehow excluded or disadvantaged by this criterion. Since attending a Minnesota high school for three years is a condition any person—regardless of immigration status or citizenship—can theoretically meet, the law cannot be characterized as discriminatory on its face.
The comparison with Texas’s law proved crucial to the judge’s reasoning. Texas had previously attempted to restrict certain in-state tuition benefits based on state residency, a criterion that more directly connects to citizenship and immigration status. Minnesota’s approach, by contrast, focuses on educational experience and state-based high school attendance—a wholly different basis that avoids explicitly targeting immigration status. This distinction explains why the same challenge that might succeed against one state’s tuition policy failed against Minnesota’s. However, if a state were to say “undocumented immigrants cannot receive in-state tuition,” that would present a clearer discrimination claim that courts would likely scrutinize more carefully.
What Is Minnesota’s Dream Act and How Does the Tuition Policy Actually Work?
Minnesota’s Dream Act framework, formally known as the Prosperity Act, became law in 2013 and represents one of the longest-running in-state tuition programs for undocumented students in the nation. To qualify, students must have attended a Minnesota high school for at least three consecutive years and graduated with a diploma or earned a General Educational Development (GED) credential while in Minnesota. Once these conditions are met, qualifying students can enroll at Minnesota public colleges and universities and pay the same in-state tuition rate as Minnesota residents, regardless of their immigration status. Beyond tuition, the policy also opens access to privately funded financial aid at Minnesota institutions, giving undocumented students additional pathways to afford higher education.
The policy does include one federal requirement: males aged 18 to 25 must register with the U.S. Selective Service System to maintain eligibility. This requirement aligns with federal law and applies to various federal benefits programs. For example, a student who immigrated to Minnesota as a child, attended Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis from grades 10 through 12, and graduated in 2023 would qualify immediately for in-state tuition when enrolling at the University of Minnesota or any Minnesota State University campus, paying approximately $8,500 per year instead of out-of-state rates exceeding $20,000 annually.
What Recent Changes Expanded Educational Opportunities for Undocumented Students in Minnesota?
Starting in Fall 2024, Minnesota added a powerful new layer to its commitment to undocumented student access through the North Star Promise Scholarship program. This initiative provides tuition and fee-free pathways for eligible residents, including undocumented immigrants who meet the state’s Dream Act requirements. The North Star Promise represents a significant step beyond the original 2013 policy, eliminating not just tuition barriers but also eliminating fee costs that can accumulate to thousands of dollars annually. The difference between in-state tuition and true free college is substantial.
While in-state tuition at a Minnesota public university runs roughly $8,500 per year, adding room and board and living expenses brings the total cost of attendance to around $25,000 to $35,000 annually depending on the institution. The North Star Promise removes at least the tuition and fee portion, reducing financial barriers considerably. However, students still face living expenses, books, transportation, and other costs. For comparison, a student without the scholarship would pay approximately $20,000 more in tuition alone each year compared to a resident receiving in-state rates, whereas the North Star Promise extends the savings further by covering fees that might otherwise total $500 to $1,500 per year.
What Federal and State Tensions Underlie Cases Like This Lawsuit?
The DOJ’s lawsuit reflected a broader tension between federal immigration enforcement priorities and state decisions about public benefits and education access. The Trump administration, which took office in January 2025, prioritized restrictive immigration enforcement throughout its policy agenda. However, states retain significant authority over education policy and institutional decisions about who can access state-funded universities and at what cost.
This creates an inherent conflict: federal officials may want to restrict benefits to non-citizens, while states may believe that providing educational opportunities to long-term residents—regardless of status—serves state economic interests and humanitarian values. The critical limitation in federal authority became clear in Judge Menendez’s ruling: while the federal government controls immigration law and enforcement, it cannot easily overturn a state’s neutral educational policy that happens to benefit undocumented immigrants if that policy doesn’t explicitly target immigration status. Minnesota could have lost this lawsuit if it had written a law saying “undocumented students get in-state tuition” or “this benefit applies only to people without legal status.” Instead, by basing eligibility on high school attendance—a criterion unrelated to immigration status—the state created a policy that federal courts cannot easily challenge as discriminatory. This distinction means other states can adopt similar policies without necessarily falling vulnerable to federal lawsuit, provided they use neutral criteria unrelated to immigration status.
Why Did the Original DOJ Lawsuit Fail in Finding Evidence of Discrimination?
The burden of proof fell on the DOJ to demonstrate that Minnesota’s policy discriminated against U.S. citizens. Judge Menendez found that the government simply could not meet this burden. A U.S. citizen who did not attend a Minnesota high school for three years—whether because they grew up out of state or transferred to Minnesota after high school—would pay out-of-state tuition just like an undocumented student in the same situation. Conversely, a U.S.
Citizen who attended Minnesota high schools would receive in-state rates alongside their undocumented classmates. The policy treats people identically based on the criterion that matters: educational attendance history in Minnesota. This outcome underscores an important principle: intent matters in discrimination law. If Minnesota had intended to exclude U.S. citizens or intended to specifically benefit undocumented immigrants, that intent could be examined as evidence of unlawful discrimination. However, the state’s actual intent was to provide in-state benefits to anyone who spent formative years in Minnesota schools—a neutral objective with no discriminatory intent toward any protected class.
What Does This Ruling Mean for Other States and Future Tuition Policy?
Judge Menendez’s decision provides a legal roadmap for other states considering similar educational benefits for undocumented students. The ruling demonstrates that states can offer in-state tuition and financial aid to undocumented students without federal legal vulnerability, provided they base eligibility on neutral criteria like high school attendance rather than explicitly on immigration status. This may encourage other states to evaluate their own policies or to consider adopting comparable programs.
The long-term impact depends partly on whether the DOJ appeals the decision. Even without an appeal, the ruling stands as persuasive authority—though not binding precedent outside the Eighth Circuit—that other courts might cite when evaluating similar challenges. For undocumented students and their families, the decision provides stability and validation of Minnesota’s 13-year investment in educational access. The ruling also reflects broader recognition that educational attainment benefits state economies regardless of immigration status, and that policies designed to keep students who have built lives in Minnesota engaged in higher education serve legitimate state interests.