Trump Sues Four States Over Immigrant Tuition: AZ, NM, OR, WA

Aaron Elinoff Managing Partner, Novo Legal Group Colorado Bar #46468 Immigration & Civil Rights

August 27, 2026 Updated August 27, 2026 16 min read

Trump Sues Four States Over Immigrant Tuition: AZ, NM, OR, WA

The Trump administration sued four more states this week over laws that extend in-state tuition and financial aid to immigrant students, filing complaints Thursday morning in federal district courts in Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington. The Department of Justice asked each court to declare the challenged state law preempted by federal law and to enter an injunction stopping the state from offering reduced tuition to any student without lawful immigration status.

The four complaints, taken together, raise the total number of states the DOJ has now sued over in-state tuition programs for undocumented students to 21. They also fold four more states into a rolling legal campaign that has already produced favorable federal rulings for the administration in five states and one significant loss in Minnesota.

For students and families in the four newly sued states, the immediate legal impact is limited. Nothing about in-state tuition eligibility has changed as of today. Every one of these cases will take months to reach a first ruling, and years to fully resolve on appeal. But the pattern is important, and the state-by-state differences in how these tuition laws are written will drive different outcomes.

This post explains what the DOJ filed Thursday, the shared federal legal argument at the center of all four cases, the four state laws individually, where the 21-state pattern stands, and what students and families in Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington should know while the litigation moves forward.

Three facts, fast

The DOJ sued Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington on August 27, 2026 over state laws that extend in-state tuition and financial aid to students regardless of immigration status.
Across the four complaints, the DOJ asserts 15 separate violations of the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, all built on the same federal preemption theory under 8 U.S.C. § 1623.
Nothing changes for current students today. The DOJ has won similar cases in Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Illinois, but lost in Minnesota in March. Suits are pending against 11 additional states.

Need a case-specific screen? Contact Novo Legal at (888) 746-5245 or novo-legal.com/en/contact.

What the DOJ filed on August 27

The Department of Justice filed four separate complaints in four federal district courts on Thursday, August 27, 2026, targeting state laws in Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington. Each complaint names the state and its higher education officials as defendants. Each asks for a permanent injunction preventing the state from offering in-state tuition rates, scholarships, or financial aid to any student not lawfully present in the United States.

Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward, Jr. announced the filings and stated that Congress has prohibited states from "placing aliens over citizens." Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate, who leads the Justice Department's Civil Division, framed the matter as a "simple matter of federal law."

Together, the four complaints assert 15 separate violations of the U.S. Constitution's Supremacy Clause, plus additional counts targeting state financial aid and scholarship programs that operate in parallel with the in-state tuition provisions.

The federal legal argument

Every one of the four cases rests on the same federal statute: 8 U.S.C. § 1623, enacted in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That statute provides that an alien not lawfully present in the United States is not eligible on the basis of residence in a state for any postsecondary education benefit, unless the same benefit is available to citizens or nationals of the United States on the same terms, without regard to whether the citizen is a resident of that state.

The DOJ reads § 1623 to prohibit a state from offering reduced in-state tuition to undocumented students on residence-based terms unless the state also offers that same reduced rate to every U.S. citizen in every other state. Because none of the four states charges out-of-state U.S. citizens the same reduced rate that residents pay, the DOJ argues, extending in-state rates to undocumented students in these states violates federal law.

The state defense strategy in each case is likely to focus on one point: the challenged laws do not condition benefits on state residence at all. They condition benefits on educational criteria, such as attending or graduating from a high school in the state. Under that reading, the state statutes do not fall within the residence-based prohibition in § 1623, and the same educational-criteria eligibility is available to any U.S. citizen who meets the criteria, regardless of where the citizen currently lives.

This is the central legal question in every one of the 21 pending or resolved DOJ in-state tuition cases. Different federal judges have read § 1623 differently. That is why outcomes vary.

The four state laws at issue

Each of the four state laws sued this week has a distinct legislative history and a slightly different structure. The differences matter because they affect how each law fits within the § 1623 preemption analysis.

Arizona: Proposition 308 (2022)

Arizona voters passed Proposition 308 in 2022. The measure amended state law to allow any Arizona public university or community college to offer in-state tuition to a student, regardless of the student's immigration status, if the student attended a school in Arizona for at least two years and graduated from an Arizona high school or received an equivalent credential in the state. Proposition 308 also makes affected students eligible for state financial aid on the same terms.

Estimates of the number of affected students vary. The Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting has estimated that more than 3,600 noncitizens could qualify for in-state tuition under Proposition 308. Arizona public university data shows that at least 720 noncitizen students have received in-state tuition, including 432 at Arizona State University. The Justice Department last year estimated that ASU students without lawful status received approximately $10.5 million in reduced tuition through the program.

Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes defended the constitutionality of Proposition 308 in a 2025 letter to Democratic state Senator Flavio Bravo. Mayes emphasized the educational-criteria structure of the law: Proposition 308 requires students to have attended and graduated from an Arizona high school, not to reside in Arizona during college. Under that reading, the law does not depend on state residence within the meaning of § 1623.

New Mexico: Senate Bill 582 (2005)

New Mexico's law has been on the books longer than any of the others sued Thursday. Senate Bill 582 passed in 2005 with substantial bipartisan support, 28 to 3 in the state Senate and 41 to 26 in the House. Then-Senator Cynthia Nava, D-Doña Ana, a former superintendent of Las Cruces Public Schools, sponsored the bill.

SB 582 extends in-state tuition, scholarships, and state financial aid to any resident who attended a New Mexico secondary school for at least one year, graduated from a New Mexico high school, or earned a GED in the state. The statute expressly provides that eligibility applies "regardless of immigration status." Thousands of students have relied on it over two decades.

For a more detailed analysis of the New Mexico complaint, our companion post on SB 582 walks through the state's likely response and the timeline.

Oregon: Educational criteria plus intent requirement

Oregon's in-state tuition law adds a requirement not found in the Arizona or New Mexico statutes. To qualify, a student must show an "intention to become a citizen or a lawful permanent resident of the United States." Oregon also requires the student to have earned a secondary certification in Oregon, but not to reside in the state during college.

The intent requirement is legally significant. It signals that Oregon designed the statute with an eye toward federal preemption concerns. A student who declares the intent to seek lawful status is, on Oregon's reading, someone the state can constitutionally support in pursuit of that status. Whether that framing shields the law from § 1623 preemption is now a question for the federal court in Oregon.

Washington: Educational criteria plus intent requirement

Washington's statute is structured similarly to Oregon's. It requires students to have earned secondary certification in Washington and to show intent to become a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. Washington does not require postsecondary residence in the state.

Both Oregon and Washington may argue that their intent-to-adjust requirement functionally distinguishes their statutes from residence-based tuition benefits, and that § 1623 does not preempt statutes that condition eligibility on both educational history and a bona fide immigration goal.

The 21-state pattern and where cases stand

Since President Trump's April 2026 executive order directing the Justice Department to challenge state laws that extend in-state tuition to undocumented students, the DOJ has filed a rolling series of complaints. As of Thursday, August 27, 2026, the state-by-state posture is as follows.

Favorable to the DOJ (5 states): Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Illinois. Texas entered into a consent decree quickly. The other four resolved on terms favorable to the federal government at various points during 2025 and 2026.

Unfavorable to the DOJ (1 state): Minnesota. A federal judge in Minnesota ruled in March 2026 that the state's Dream Act, which extends in-state tuition and financial aid to students without lawful status, may stand.

Pending (11 states, before Thursday): Virginia, California, New Jersey, Kansas, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado, New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.

Newly filed Thursday (4 states): Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington.

Total: 21 states.

The pattern reveals something worth noting. The DOJ has won every one of these cases where the state either quickly settled or defended on grounds other than the educational-criteria distinction. The DOJ lost in Minnesota, where the court found the state law defensible under § 1623. States like Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington that have crafted statutes around educational criteria, and that have signaled they will defend the laws, present the strongest test cases for the state-side reading of § 1623.

What happens next

Each of the four cases will proceed on its own schedule. The DOJ's complaint sets a response deadline for each state, usually 21 to 60 days depending on the local rules. Each state's attorney general or higher education department will file either a motion to dismiss or an answer within that window.

Realistic near-term milestones:

Weeks: Each state files a response. Motions to dismiss are likely in every one of the four cases.
Weeks to months: Motion-to-dismiss briefing and argument in each district court.
Months to a year: Each district court rules on the motion to dismiss. Cases that survive move into discovery.
A year or more: Summary judgment briefing, argument, and ruling.
After district court rulings: Appeals to the appropriate circuit courts. The Ninth Circuit will hear the appeals from Oregon and Washington (and Arizona is also in the Ninth Circuit). The Tenth Circuit will hear the appeal from New Mexico. If those circuits split, the Supreme Court could take up the § 1623 question.

Throughout this timeline, the challenged provisions of state law remain in effect unless a federal court enters a preliminary injunction. The DOJ has generally not sought preliminary injunctive relief in these cases in most jurisdictions, and there is no reason to expect a different pattern here.

What students and families should know

As of today, nothing about in-state tuition eligibility has changed in Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, or Washington.

Currently enrolled students: Your in-state rate continues. Any scholarships or state financial aid you already receive continue to disburse under the terms of the applicable award.
Fall 2026 registration: Continues under existing rules in each of the four states. Students who qualify continue to qualify.
Applications for spring 2027 and beyond: Continue to apply as you normally would. The application, admission, and financial aid processes remain unchanged during the pendency of the litigation.
DACA recipients: DACA status is distinct from lawful status for immigration purposes. None of the four state laws condition eligibility on DACA. A DACA recipient who meets the educational criteria of the applicable state law has always qualified on that basis, and continues to.
If the DOJ eventually wins in a given state: Even a favorable district court ruling for the federal government would not take immediate effect during any appeal. Any court order changing tuition eligibility would need to specify an effective date and would need to be implemented by state institutions.

None of this substitutes for individual advice. Every family's situation is different, and immigration status, financial aid packages, and enrollment timing interact in ways this post cannot evaluate.

What we don't know yet

Several important questions remain open across the four cases:

How each district judge will read § 1623 in relation to the specific educational-criteria structure of the challenged state law.
Whether the DOJ will seek preliminary injunctive relief in any of the four new cases.
Whether Oregon's and Washington's intent-to-adjust requirement will affect the preemption analysis.
Whether a circuit split emerges between the Ninth and Tenth Circuits that could reach the Supreme Court.
Whether Congress or the executive branch takes additional action, including new legislation such as the Put American Students First Act that would codify the federal position on in-state tuition.
Whether other states with similar laws now under DOJ suit consolidate their defenses or coordinate amicus support across cases.

We will publish updates as material developments occur.

What to do now

If you are a current college student in Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, or Washington who qualifies for in-state tuition under state law:

Continue your enrollment. Confirm with your institution's financial aid office that your fall 2026 aid disburses on schedule. Save documentation of your current tuition classification and any award letters. If you have questions about your immigration status independent of tuition, speak with an immigration attorney.

If you are a prospective college student in one of the four states:

Apply as you normally would. Complete state financial aid applications on schedule. Do not delay applications based on the pendency of the litigation. If your family is weighing schools in the four newly sued states against out-of-state options, factor the litigation risk into a longer-term planning conversation, but recognize that the immediate benefit remains available.

If you are a family with a high school student in Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, or Washington:

Nothing in this lawsuit affects K-12 education. Your student's Plyler v. Doe right to public K-12 education is unaffected. Continue planning for postsecondary education. Talk to your student's college and career counselor about the current landscape and the specific eligibility rules in your state.

If you are an immigration attorney or advocate advising students in any of the four states:

Track the docket in each case. Note whether the DOJ moves for preliminary injunctive relief in any of the four district courts. Advise clients that the current benefit remains available and that the litigation is likely to take many months to resolve. Watch the Minnesota dismissal reasoning as a template for state-side arguments.

Frequently asked questions

Does this lawsuit affect DACA recipients?

Indirectly. None of the four state laws condition eligibility on DACA status. A DACA recipient who meets the state's educational criteria has always qualified on that basis. The DOJ's argument reaches all students without current lawful status, which under the DOJ's reading includes DACA recipients.

What if I am already receiving state financial aid?

Aid you have already been awarded continues to disburse under the terms of the award. Contact your institution's financial aid office to confirm the current status of your package.

Does the lawsuit affect private colleges in any of the four states?

No. The four challenged state laws govern tuition at state public institutions. Private colleges set their own tuition and financial aid policies.

Can I still apply for the spring 2027 semester?

Yes. Applications and financial aid processing continue on their normal cycle in all four states.

Does Oregon or Washington's intent-to-adjust requirement matter for me?

Yes. Both states require that you show intent to become a U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident. If you already meet the educational criteria, the intent requirement typically involves documenting your immigration goals. Talk to a licensed immigration attorney about the specific documentation and how it interacts with any pending USCIS matter you may have.

What is 8 U.S.C. § 1623?

It is a provision of federal immigration law enacted in 1996. It restricts states from offering postsecondary education benefits to persons not lawfully present in the United States on the basis of state residence, unless the same benefits are made available to U.S. citizens on the same terms, without regard to citizens' state of residence. The scope of § 1623 in relation to state laws that use educational criteria, rather than residence criteria, is the central question in this line of litigation.

Which of the 21 cases has the DOJ won?

Five to date: Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Illinois. The DOJ lost in Minnesota in March 2026, and 15 cases are now pending, including the four filed Thursday.

Why Novo Legal

Novo Legal Group is a bilingual, community-rooted human rights firm. Every attorney and staff member on our team is fluent in English and Spanish. Spanish is not a translation afterthought here, it is how we think. We publish same-day analysis when federal policy shifts against our community, because we know our clients are Googling at 10pm with a headline in one tab and an application deadline in the other. We do not do scare language, and we do not do "call now" pressure. We do fierce advocacy and straight answers.

Aaron Elinoff, Managing Partner, has been representing immigrant families in Colorado and Washington since 2013. If any of these four lawsuits touches your family or your students, bring it to us. We will tell you what we would do.

Schedule a consultation

SCHEDULE A CONSULTATION — (888) 746-5245 — novo-legal.com/en/contact