Trump 2.0 – Non-Adversarial Immigration Consent Decrees and Settlements
(Last Updated: September 14, 2026)
The second Trump administration has entered into numerous non-adversarial consent decrees or settlements that restrict various federal immigration policies or invalidate state
laws providing benefits to certain noncitizens. These court-ordered agreements that may last for many years or indefinitely have arisen in: (1) lawsuits brought by state Republican
Attorneys General against select Biden administration immigration policies, and (2) lawsuits brought by the Department of Justice to invalidate longstanding state laws affording
some noncitizens access to in-state college tuition. In some cases, the filing and court-ordered approval occurred almost simultaneously. In a few cases, challenges by actual or
prospective intervenors to entry of a final consent judgment remain ongoing. Press coverage of some agreements appears here and here.
This table compiles pending or final cases. Feedback on this table is welcome at IPTP.feedback@gmail.com.
A downloadable PDF version of this page is available here.
FEDERAL Immigration Laws and Policies
Case Name
Topic
Current Impact
Court Order
Duration
Status
IPTP #
Florida v.
Mayorkas,
23-cv-9962-TKW
(N.D. Fla.)
Judge T. Kent
Wetherell II
Parole
Certain Biden
administration border
parole policies
enjoined; future parole
authority limited.
● Declares Parole With Conditions (PWC) memorandum
unlawful and sets it aside;
● Enjoins DHS from implementing or enforcing the PWC
memorandum, Parole + Alternatives to Detention
memorandum, and any “materially indistinguishable policy
that injures Plaintiffs”; and
● “Defendants agree not to issue any memorandum or
otherwise adopt any policy that uses the Secretary of
Homeland Security’s parole authority under [8 U.S.C. §]
1182(d)(5) to create a categorical parole processing
pathway for aliens at the border primarily to alleviate
concerns over detention capacity or improve the
Department of Homeland Security’s operational efficiency,
including any memorandum or policy shifting the initiation
15-year
consent
decree
Final. No appeal, no
intervention.
2188
of removal proceedings from the border to the interior or
otherwise postponing the initiation of removal
proceedings.”
Texas v. DOJ,
26-cv-70-O (N.D.
Tex.)
Judge Reed
O’Connor
Administrative
closure
Biden administration
EOIR administrative
closure rule enjoined;
future administrative
closure rulemaking
authority limited.
● Vacates Biden administration administrative closure rule
and permanently enjoins DOJ and EOIR from enforcing it;
● Permanently enjoins DOJ and EOIR “from promulgating
regulations that permit immigration judges the authority to
administratively close removal proceedings without
reaching the merits of a case absent an express statutory
basis to do so.”
Permanent
injunction by
consent
decree
Baltimore, MD,
Columbus, OH, and New
Haven, CT, as well as
legal service provider
Centro Legal de la Raza
moved to intervene to
defend the Biden-era rule
and contest the consent
judgment.
District court denied
intervention motion;
proposed intervenors
noticed appeal to the Fifth
Circuit Court of Appeals.
1688
Florida v. DHS,
24-cv-509-TKW
(N.D. Fla.)
Judge T. Kent
Wetherell II
SAVE
verification
system
Court-ordered
settlement requires
DHS to make a
modified version of the
SAVE system available
for voter eligibility
queries. A separate
order by a D.C.
District Court vacated
the creation of the
modified SAVE
system. It is uncertain
how the conflict
● DHS agrees to enter into an information-sharing agreement
and new or updated memoranda of understanding with
Plaintiff States (Florida, Ohio, Indiana, Iowa) regarding the
SAVE verification system;
● DHS agrees to modify SAVE system capability to provide,
inter alia, free access to state, territorial, tribal, and local
government agencies; bulk upload verification requests;
and citizenship or immigration-status responses without
requiring submission of subjects’ A-Numbers (e.g., with
partial SSNs).
20-year
court-ordered
settlement
agreement
In separate litigation, a
D.C. district court
[League of Women Voters
v. U.S. DHS, 25-cv-03501
(D.D.C.). vacated
creation of the modified
SAVE system. In
response, the plaintiff
states in the Florida
district court moved to
enforce their settlement
agreement. The Florida
district court granted the
1698
between those court
orders will be
resolved.
states’ motion and
ordered DHS to reinstate
the plaintiff states’ access
to bulk-upload and
SSN-search features of
the SAVE system.
The plaintiff
organizations and several
individuals who prevailed
in the D.D.C. action then
successfully moved to
intervene in the Florida
case and appealed the
enforcement order. That
appeal is pending in the
Eleventh Circuit Court of
Appeals. Meanwhile, the
Department of Justice is
appealing the D.D.C.
judgment to the D.C.
Court of Appeals, which
denied a stay pending
appeal of the district court
order.
STATE Immigration Laws and Policies
Case Name
Topic
Current Impact
Court Order
Duration
Status
IPTP #
U.S. v. Texas,
25-cv-00055-O
(N.D. Tex.)
In-State
Tuition for
resident
Texas in-state tuition
for resident
undocumented
● Declares that Texas in-state tuition laws, as applied to state
resident noncitizens who are not lawfully present in the
United States, violate the Supremacy Clause and are
Permanent
injunction by
consent
Intervention motions filed
by an educational
institution, advocacy
1719
Judge Reed
O’Connor
undocumented
students
students invalidated.
unconstitutional and invalid;
● Permanently enjoins Texas from enforcing such in-state
tuition laws as applied to noncitizens who are not lawfully
present in the United States.
decree
organization, and student
denied by district court;
affirmed by Fifth Circuit
on appeal.
U.S. v. Oklahoma,
25-cv-00265-RA
W (E.D. Okla.)
Judge Ronald A.
White
In-State
Tuition for
resident
undocumented
students
Oklahoma in-state
tuition for resident
undocumented
students invalidated.
● Declares that Oklahoma in-state tuition laws, as applied to
state resident noncitizens who are not lawfully present in
the United States, violate the Supremacy Clause and are
unconstitutional and invalid;
● Permanently enjoins Oklahoma from enforcing such
in-state tuition laws as applied to noncitizens who are not
lawfully present in the United States.
Permanent
injunction by
consent
decree
Post-judgment
intervention motion by
Oklahoma Students for
Affordable Tuition
pending in district court.
1719
U.S. v. Nebraska,
26-cv-00172-BC
B (D. Neb.)
Judge Brian C.
Buescher
In-State
Tuition for
resident
undocumented
students
Nebraska in-state
tuition for resident
undocumented
students invalidated.
● Declares that those portions of Nebraska in-state tuition
laws that extend eligibility for in-state tuition benefits to
state resident noncitizens “unlawfully present” in the
United States violate the Supremacy Clause and are
unconstitutional and invalid;
● Permanently enjoins Nebraska from enforcing the portions
of such in-state tuition laws that extend in-state tuition
benefits to noncitizens unlawfully present in the United
States.
Permanent
injunction by
consent
decree
Intervention motion filed
by advocacy
organizations denied by
district court; appeal
pending at Eighth Circuit.
Partial stay pending
appeal of district court
injunction denied by
Eighth Circuit.
1719
U.S. v. Kansas,
26-cv-04066-HLT
(D. Kan.)
Judge Holly Lou
Teeter
In-State
Tuition for
resident
undocumented
students
Kansas in-state tuition
for resident
undocumented
students invalidated.
● Declares that Kansas law recognizing certain noncitizens
who lack lawful immigration status as residents for
purposes of in-state tuition and fees to be preempted by
federal law;
● Permanently enjoins Kansas from enforcing the law that
extends in-state tuition and fee benefits to certain
noncitizens who lack lawful immigration status in the
United States.
Permanent
injunction by
consent
decree
DOJ and Kansas Attorney
General Kris Kobach
moved jointly for entry of
a consent judgment
invalidating Kansas
in-state tuition law and
permanently enjoining
enforcement.
Kansas Governor Laura
1719
Kelly and Kansas
Students for Affordable
Tuition moved to
intervene to defend
Kansas’s law.
Both intervention motion
were denied as futile by
the district court.
Note: Kansas has a
Republican Attorney
General and Democratic
Governor.
U.S. v. Virginia,
25-cv-01067-REP
(E.D. Va.)
Judge Robert E.
Payne
In-State
Tuition for
resident
undocumented
students
None.
● Case pending and no court order.
N/A
DOJ and outgoing
Virginia Attorney General
Jason S. Miyares moved
jointly for entry of a
consent judgment
invalidating Virginia’s
in-state tuition laws and
permanently enjoining
enforcement.
Newly elected Virginia
Attorney General Jay
Jones withdrew the state’s
consent.
District court denied the
joint consent motion as
moot.
1719
U.S. v. Kentucky
Council on
Postsecondary
Education,
25-cv-00028-GF
VT (E.D. Ky.)
Judge Gregory F.
Van Tatenhove
In-State
Tuition for
resident
undocumented
students
Kentucky in-state
tuition for resident
undocumented
students invalidated.
● Declares that Kentucky in-state tuition law, as applied to
state resident noncitizens who are not lawfully present in
the United States, violates the Supremacy Clause and is
unconstitutional and invalid;
● Permanently enjoins Kentucky from enforcing such an
in-state tuition law as applied to noncitizens who are not
lawfully present in the United States.
Permanent
injunction by
consent
decree
State represented by a
private law firm, not by
state AG.
District court granted
motion to intervene by
Kentucky Students for
Affordable Tuition.
Court approved consent
decree.
Appeal by intervenors
pending at Sixth Circuit.
Note: Kentucky has a
Republican Attorney
General and Democratic
Governor.
1719
