Old Main at Penn State University
HARRISBURG, Pa. – Penn State University is the latest to be targeted with a lawsuit by the federal government for allowing in-state tuition rates to undocumented immigrants while not offering the same prices to students from out-of-state.
The Department of Justice sued Penn State Nov. 5 in federal court, citing “blatant unequal treatment favoring illegal aliens over U.S. citizens.” It is the 27th such lawsuit, and six of them have resulted in orders declaring similar laws unconstitutional.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled for the DOJ in July over a Texas law allowing illegal aliens to pay in-state rates. Federal law that says illegal aliens are not eligible for postsecondary education benefits unless all Americans are preempts such state laws, the DOJ argues.
Penn State’s policy is not a state law but is still preempted, the suit says. The school charges up to $46,680 a year for Pennsylvania residents but out-of-staters pay up to $72,000.
“The Pennsylvania State University rewards an illegal alien with eligibility for in-state tuition, based on residency within Pennsylvania, while explicitly denying eligibility for resident tuition to U.S. citizens who are not Pennsylvania residents,” the lawsuit says.
“By extending in-state tuition eligibility to illegal aliens, Pennsylvania State University’s Undocumented Student Policy frustrates the federal immigration objectives served by Section 1623.”
Trump issued two executive orders in 2025 regarding what he feels is preferential treatment for illegal aliens, and his DOJ has taken that cause to the courts. Amicus briefs poured into the Texas case, including from the Mexican American Legislative Caucus – a group of Texas House members of Latino descent and/or represent districts with Latino populations of more than 50%.
Outgoing Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton refused to defend the Texas Dream Act, forging a settlement and aligning himself with Trump policy while he prepared for an ultimately unsuccessful U.S. Senate campaign. Other groups like Austin Community College were forced to intervene in the case.
Frustrated by this, MALC cited “clear impropriety on the part of” Paxton and touted the state’s longstanding interest in promoting higher education opportunities to immigrants. Another brief by groups like the Texas Immigration Law Council and Texans for Economic Growth said the prosperity of the state has always relied on welcoming people from all over.
“Our state has thrived because we honor merit and grit in our decades-long approach to education, exemplified by the bipartisan Texas Dream Act, which has ensured that all eligible, meritorious students can access higher education at in-state tuition rates,” the brief says.
“That approach has kept Texas competitive, strengthened our economy and workforce, and filled our schools with talented, determined students from all backgrounds. It is no coincidence that the Texas Dream Act has always enjoyed bipartisan support: it benefits everyone, and the Texas Legislature has repeatedly refused to repeal the law because it is rooted in fairness, opportunity, and the long-term interests of Texas.”
Still, courts have sided with the Trump administration. In July, an Illinois federal judge ruled Gov. JB Pritzker and Democrat lawmakers violated federal law with legislation specifically designed to give illegal immigrants in-state rates.
In the ruling, Judge David Dugan said the Illinois laws, known as the RISE Act and the Illinois DREAM Act, illegally give illegal immigrants state educational benefits that are not also extended to U.S. citizens who live outside Illinois.
"Put simply, U.S. citizens or nationals must be treated no worse than illegal aliens," Dugan wrote in the ruling.
