Original Date Announced

Sec. 5 of EO 14287, "Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens," states that the Attorney General (AG) and the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) shall "take appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State and local laws, regulations, policies, and practices favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens. . ." This includes state laws that provide in-state higher education tuition to undocumented individuals but not to out-of-state American citizens that may violate 8 U.S.C. 1623 and those that deal with sentencing.

Trump 2.0 [ID #1719]

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.06.04 Complaint – United States v. Texas

The United States filed a lawsuit against the State of Texas challenging §§ 54.051(m) and 54.052(a) of the Texas Education Code, which allow certain undocumented immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. The complaint alleges that these provisions are preempted by federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a), which prohibits states from providing postsecondary education benefits to undocumented individuals unless the same benefits are available to U.S. citizens regardless of residency. The United States argues that the Texas provisions violate the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and seeks declaratory and injunctive relief. United States v. Texas, No. 7:25-cv-00055 (N.D. Tex.).

**Link to case here. Our litigation entries generally report only the initial complaint and any major substantive filings or decisions. For additional information, CourtListener provides access to PACER and all available pleadings. Other sites that track litigation in more detail or organize cases by topic include Civil Rights Clearinghouse, Justice Action Center, National Immigration Litigation Alliance, and Just Security**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.06.04 Final Consent Judgment – United States v. Texas

After Texas agreed not to defend its in-state tuition law, Judge Reed O'Connor of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas entered a final consent judgment declaring that Texas Education Code §§ 54.051(m) and 54.052(a), as applied to noncitizens who are not lawfully present in the United States, violate the Supremacy Clause and are unconstitutional and invalid. The court permanently enjoined Texas and its agents from enforcing the challenged provisions.

The judgment followed a joint motion for entry of consent judgment by the United States and the State of Texas and resolved the federal government’s lawsuit asserting that the Texas provisions were preempted by 8 U.S.C. § 1623.

The same-day filing of the Complaint, Joint Motion, and entry of a Consent Judgment raises questions of collusion, according to legal experts.

United States v. Texas, No. 7:25-cv-00055 (N.D. Tex.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.06.17 Complaint - United States v. Beshear

The United States filed a lawsuit against the state of Kentucky challenging Kentucky regulation 13 Ky. Admin. Regs. 2:045 § 8(4)(a), which permits certain undocumented immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition at public universities and colleges. The complaint asserts that this regulation is preempted by federal law, namely 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a), which bars states from offering postsecondary education benefits to undocumented individuals unless those same benefits are offered to all U.S. citizens, regardless of residency. The United States contends that Kentucky's regulation conflicts with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and seeks both declaratory and injunctive relief. United States v. Beshear, No. 3:25-cv-00028 (E.D. Ky.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.06.25 Complaint - United States v. Walz

The United States filed a lawsuit against the state of Minnesota challenging Minn. Stat. § 135A.043 and § 136A.1465, which permit certain undocumented immigrants to qualify for in-state tuition at public universities and colleges, and to receive scholarships covering part or all of their tuition costs through the state's North Star Promise program. The complaint asserts that these provisions are preempted by federal law, namely 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a), which bars states from offering postsecondary education benefits to undocumented individuals unless those same benefits are offered to all U.S. citizens, regardless of residency. The United States contends that Minnesota's laws conflict with the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and seeks both declaratory and injunctive relief. United States v. Walz, No. 0:25-cv-02668 (D. Minn.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.08.05 Complaint - United States v. Oklahoma

The United States filed a lawsuit against the state of Oklahoma, challenging Oklahoma statute, Title 70, § 3242, which makes certain noncitizen students eligible for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. The complaint alleges that Oklahoma's law violates the Supremacy Clause because it conflicts with federal law, namely 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a). The complaint asks the court to declare the state law unconstitutional and to order Oklahoma to stop enforcing the policy. United States v. Oklahoma, No. 6:25-cv-00265 (E.D. Okla.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**

Subsequent Trump and Court Action

2025.08.07 Report and Recommendation - United States v. Oklahoma

A federal magistrate judge issued a report and recommendation advising the district court to issue a permanent injunction ordering state officials to stop enforcing an Oklahoma statute making certain noncitizens eligible for in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. The report follows a motion filed jointly by plaintiffs and defendants agreeing that the state law is preempted by federal law and asking the court to permanently enjoin enforcement of the state law. United States v. Oklahoma, No. 6:25-cv-00265 (E.D. Okla.).

**Link to case here. See litigation note above**