The Trump administration is escalating its legal push against state-level immigration policies, filing lawsuits against Massachusetts and Rhode Island over laws that extend in-state tuition benefits to certain undocumented immigrants.
Announced Monday, the Department of Justice action targets long-standing state programs that allow noncitizens who meet residency and schooling requirements to pay reduced tuition rates at public universities — benefits typically reserved for state residents.
The federal government argues those policies cross a legal line by creating a system where noncitizens receive educational pricing advantages that are not available to U.S. citizens from other states.
Justice Department attorneys contend the arrangement violates federal law by effectively discriminating against American citizens based on residency and immigration status.
“The Department of Justice is committed to fulfilling President Trump’s promise that illegal aliens will not receive taxpayer benefits or preferential treatment over America’s own citizens,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said in a statement.
“As our nation marks 250 years of freedom, we will continue to challenge state laws that place aliens over citizens in clear defiance of Congress’ commands.”
The lawsuits are part of a broader legal strategy by the Trump administration aimed at challenging state policies that extend public benefits — including tuition discounts, financial aid, and scholarships — to undocumented immigrants who meet local residency and education criteria.
Massachusetts has allowed qualifying undocumented immigrants to access in-state tuition, financial aid, and scholarships at public universities since 2023. Rhode Island has permitted similar tuition access dating back to 2011 and later codified the policy in 2021.
Supporters of such state laws often argue they reflect local priorities and recognize students who were raised and educated in the state, regardless of immigration status. But the federal government is now drawing a harder line, arguing that states cannot create parallel benefit systems that treat noncitizens more favorably than out-of-state American citizens.
The cases now head into federal court, where the clash between state discretion and federal immigration enforcement is expected to be tested once again.
At its core, the dispute is about more than tuition tables. It is about whether states can extend public benefits in ways Washington believes undermine uniform treatment of American citizens — and whether the federal government is willing to force that question into the courts state by state.
