Minnesota Faces DOJ Lawsuit Over Tuition Aid for Undocumented Students: “Citizenship Should Matter”
A newly filed federal lawsuit is turning Minnesota’s progressive education policies into a national legal battleground.
The U.S. Department of Justice has formally sued the state over its Dream Act, a law that gives undocumented immigrants access to in-state tuition and taxpayer-funded college financial aid—even as out-of-state American citizens are required to pay significantly more.
The case, announced late Monday, ignited a political firestorm that reaches far beyond state borders. Critics are calling it a test of fairness, citizenship, and whether U.S. policies are starting to place non-citizens ahead of citizens in access to public resources.
“We’re not arguing against education,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi, who is leading the DOJ’s effort. “We’re arguing for equal treatment of Americans in their own country.”
Minnesota’s Dream Act in the Crosshairs
Signed into law in 2013, Minnesota’s Dream Act allows undocumented students who meet certain criteria—such as graduating from a state high school—to qualify for in-state tuition and state-funded scholarships.
Supporters say it levels the playing field for students brought to the U.S. as children. But federal attorneys argue the law now does the opposite, penalizing U.S. citizens who live outside Minnesota by charging them more to attend the same schools.
“This is about priorities,” Bondi said. “And American taxpayers should not be second in line for the benefits they fund.”
The lawsuit specifically names Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, and the Minnesota Office of Higher Education. Federal lawyers say the program violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution and creates an unlawful disparity between undocumented individuals and out-of-state U.S. citizens.
Governor Walz: “We’re Not Backing Down”
Governor Walz, who gained national visibility as the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 2024, has defended the Dream Act as a moral and economic investment in the state’s future.
Speaking at a press conference in St. Paul, Walz acknowledged the legal fight ahead:
“We know where we stand. We stand with students, regardless of where they were born. And we’re ready to defend that in court.”
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison will lead the legal defense, saying the lawsuit is less about fairness and more about federal overreach into state policymaking.
A Broader Legal and Political Campaign
This case isn’t isolated—it’s part of a coordinated effort by the Trump administration to challenge state-level immigration benefits, especially where those policies appear to offer advantages to undocumented residents over citizens.
Since returning to office, President Trump has issued a sweeping executive order directing federal agencies to identify and dismantle any programs that “disproportionately benefit non-citizens.” The Minnesota case is one of several lawsuits launched this year, following similar battles in Texas, California, and Kentucky.
“The question is not whether states can help people,” one senior DOJ official said, speaking anonymously. “It’s whether they can do so at the expense of citizens.”
Supreme Court Reshapes the Legal Landscape
In a major decision last month, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to restrict the power of lower courts to issue nationwide injunctions. The decision, praised by Trump-aligned officials, could mean faster implementation of controversial policies—including those around education and immigration.
Legal analysts say the ruling clears a path for more state-by-state fights like the one now unfolding in Minnesota, without fear of a single judge halting a policy across all 50 states.
“What we’re seeing is a shift from federal paralysis to legal fragmentation,” said constitutional scholar Dr. Meera Patel. “States are going to be forced to defend their values in court—one at a time.”
The Bigger Picture: Citizenship, Belonging, and Access
While the legal arguments focus on tuition policy, the underlying debate runs much deeper: Who deserves access to taxpayer-funded programs in the United States?
The DOJ maintains that rewarding undocumented immigrants while denying comparable benefits to American citizens from other states is a misuse of public funds. Advocates for immigrant students argue the policy reflects the reality of modern America—where many undocumented residents live, work, and pay taxes despite their immigration status.
Yet even among moderates, the optics are hard to ignore.
“If you’re a U.S. citizen from Iowa paying $30,000 a year to attend the University of Minnesota,” one policy analyst said, “and an undocumented student is paying half that, you’re going to ask: ‘What happened to fairness?’”
Looking Ahead: A Legal Showdown With National Consequences
The case could ultimately reach the U.S. Supreme Court, and legal experts say the outcome may determine how much autonomy states have in designing aid programs—especially when federal immigration laws are involved.
In the meantime, the lawsuit is already shaping the political landscape in a presidential election year where immigration, citizenship, and equity are central themes.
“This is a tipping point,” said former DOJ official Thomas Reynolds. “It’s about more than who pays what. It’s about whether being an American still comes with first-in-line access to the benefits of this country.”
Conclusion: A Nation Reconsiders Who Comes First
The Department of Justice vs. Minnesota is more than a lawsuit—it’s a philosophical conflict about national identity, state sovereignty, and fairness in an era of deepening political polarization. While some call Minnesota’s Dream Act an act of compassion, others call it a betrayal of American taxpayers and citizens.
As the case unfolds, one thing is certain: the outcome could have profound implications not just for Minnesota students, but for the way America defines access, opportunity, and citizenship in the years ahead.