DOJ Sues Minnesota Over Tuition Aid for Undocumented Immigrants, Sparks National Debate

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a high-profile lawsuit against the state of Minnesota and Governor Tim Walz, targeting a state program that provides financial assistance for undocumented immigrants pursuing higher education.

The legal challenge—unfolding just months after a similar effort was blocked in Texas—is being viewed as part of a broader federal strategy under President Donald Trump’s administration to prioritize American citizens in education policy and beyond.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has led the DOJ since Trump’s second term began, issued a strong statement Friday, calling the Minnesota law a “clear example of Americans being pushed to the back of the line in their own country.”

“No state should be allowed to put illegal immigrants ahead of its own citizens when it comes to education funding,” Bondi said. “This is about fairness, and it’s about the rule of law.”

The focus of the DOJ’s complaint is the Minnesota Dream Act, a policy first enacted in 2013 that allows undocumented students to access in-state tuition rates and state-funded financial aid, provided they meet certain criteria. The DOJ now claims that the law discriminates against U.S. citizens from other states who must pay out-of-state rates.

“The scale of the disparity is significant,” reads the DOJ’s formal complaint. “U.S. citizens who do not qualify as Minnesota residents face dramatically higher tuition costs than undocumented students living in the state.”

The lawsuit also names Minnesota’s Office of Higher Education and Attorney General Keith Ellison as co-defendants. The legal challenge comes shortly after an executive order issued by President Trump in April, which directed all federal agencies to root out policies seen as giving preferential treatment to undocumented individuals over American citizens.

Governor Walz, a prominent Democratic figure who served as the party’s vice-presidential nominee in the 2024 election, has defended the Minnesota Dream Act as a reflection of the state’s inclusive values. Speaking with reporters on Friday, Walz criticized the lawsuit as “a political stunt aimed at dividing Americans for cheap headlines.”

“We are proud of every student in Minnesota who works hard to pursue higher education,” Walz said. “This program opens doors, and we’re not going to apologize for that.”

But federal officials argue that doors are being slammed shut for American citizens—particularly those from out of state who struggle to afford rising tuition without access to the same support.

In addition to the Minnesota case, the DOJ has initiated similar legal action in Kentucky and previously threatened Texas with a lawsuit before lawmakers there repealed their own version of a tuition aid program for undocumented immigrants.

Meanwhile, Attorney General Bondi celebrated a major legal victory on Friday, as the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a ruling that will restrict lower federal courts from issuing sweeping nationwide injunctions. These types of injunctions had often been used to block President Trump’s executive orders during his first term.

“This ruling is a game-changer,” Bondi posted on X (formerly Twitter). “The Supreme Court has told activist judges that they do not have the authority to freeze presidential policy across the entire nation just because they disagree.”

The 6–3 decision, delivered by the court’s conservative majority, limits judges to applying injunctions only within their jurisdictions. The immediate effect of this decision is felt in Trump’s renewed push to restrict birthright citizenship.

Earlier this year, the Trump administration issued an executive order declaring that only children born to U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents would be eligible for automatic citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The controversial policy had faced stiff legal resistance, with three federal courts issuing nationwide injunctions. Those injunctions are now void.

Legal analysts believe the Supreme Court could make a final ruling on the constitutionality of the birthright citizenship order during its next session in October. If the court upholds Trump’s order, it could have dramatic implications. The Migration Policy Institute estimates that roughly 255,000 children are born annually in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or individuals on temporary visas—many of whom would lose automatic citizenship under the proposed rule.

As political and legal battles continue over immigration policy, education rights, and constitutional interpretation, both supporters and critics of these federal moves agree on one thing: the stakes are high, and the country is watching.