Trump Administration Sues California Over In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students

Hours after the Trump administration filed a lawsuit against California last week challenging policies that provide in-state tuition and financial aid to students without legal status, anxiety rippled through campus communities across the state.

Michelle, a community college student in San Mateo County who lacks legal immigration status, saw alarming videos on TikTok suggesting that federal financial aid programs might disappear. While these rumors were unfounded—the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) remains available—the lawsuit itself represents a significant threat to educational access for thousands of California students.

The Department of Justice’s suit alleges that California’s policies violate federal law by providing benefits to undocumented residents that aren’t equally available to U.S. citizens from other states. Federal lawyers argue that California must either eliminate these benefits or extend in-state tuition rates to all U.S. citizens regardless of residency.

“The Trump administration is engaged in a full-court press on undocumented immigrants and so-called sanctuary jurisdictions, and California and Governor Newsom in particular,” said Kevin Johnson, law professor at UC Davis. Johnson noted that naming the suit “United States of America v. Newsom” signals its political nature.

At stake are critical financial supports for over 100,000 college students in California who lack legal immigration status. While these students cannot access federal aid like Pell grants, California law allows those who meet specific requirements—such as completing three years of high school in the state—to qualify for in-state tuition and state financial aid programs like Cal Grants.

The difference is substantial: in-state tuition can save students as much as $39,000 annually compared to out-of-state rates at University of California campuses.

Legal experts, however, believe the federal government’s case stands on shaky ground. The California Supreme Court already addressed this issue in 2010, ruling that the state’s policy does not violate federal law because eligibility is based on high school attendance rather than residency status. The court noted that California’s law was carefully crafted to comply with federal restrictions.

“If Congress had intended to prohibit states entirely from making unlawful aliens eligible for in-state tuition, it could easily have done so,” the state Supreme Court wrote in its 2010 decision.

UCLA law professor Hiroshi Motomura explained that California’s Assembly Bill 540, passed in 2001, was “drafted to avoid the residency test, and it was drafted to avoid the exclusion of U.S. citizens.”

The lawsuit represents just one front in a broader confrontation between the Trump administration and California’s higher education system. The White House has also sought to impose a $1 billion penalty on UCLA for alleged civil rights abuses, sued multiple California universities for alleged antisemitism violations, and moved to freeze billions in federal research funding—though many of these actions have been temporarily blocked by federal judges.

California has signaled it will vigorously fight the lawsuit. “The Trump Administration has once again missed the mark with its latest attack on California, and we look forward to proving it in court,” said Nina Sheridan, spokesperson for the California Department of Justice. Both the University of California and the California Community Colleges system have stated their tuition and financial aid policies comply with federal law.

Thomas A. Saenz, president and general counsel for the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, predicts that even the conservative U.S. Supreme Court would likely side with California if the case reaches that level. He noted that the legal principle of federal preemption at issue in this case has implications that extend far beyond immigration policy.

“The Supreme Court is going to be very wary of making bad law in the realm of preemption, because it could then come back to bite the right wing in protecting businesses,” Saenz said.

For students like Michelle, who works four days a week at a restaurant while attending school full-time and sends $500 monthly to support her family, the uncertainty is distressing. Despite the looming legal battle, she’s already working on her financial aid application for next year, ahead of the September 2 deadline.

“College is an opportunity for me to be someone in life, to make my parents proud,” Michelle said. “Trump is taking that opportunity away because he doesn’t like immigrants.”