DOJ Sues Minnesota Over College Aid for Undocumented Immigrants
The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has filed a lawsuit against the state of Minnesota and Governor Tim Walz, challenging a state program that offers financial aid and in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants.
The program, known as the Minnesota Dream Act, was passed in 2013. It allows students without legal immigration status to qualify for lower tuition rates and state-funded financial aid if they meet certain residency and school attendance requirements.
In the lawsuit, the DOJ argues that the program unfairly discriminates against U.S. citizens who live in other states. “The cost of tuition for resident students is significantly lower than for U.S. citizens who are not state residents,” the DOJ said in a statement. “This kind of discrimination is substantial and unconstitutional.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi, who currently leads the DOJ under the Trump administration, said, “No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens.” She added that a similar case in Texas recently ended in the federal government’s favor, and the DOJ intends to pursue the Minnesota case with the same energy.
The lawsuit also names Minnesota’s Office of Higher Education and State Attorney General Keith Ellison as defendants. The legal action follows a directive from President Donald Trump in April that instructed federal agencies to review and eliminate policies that benefit undocumented immigrants over U.S. citizens.
Governor Walz, who ran as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in 2024, has not yet issued a detailed response to the lawsuit. He previously stated that the country “was not ready” for the progressive agenda promoted during the 2024 campaign.
Meanwhile, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major decision on the limits of judicial power. In a 6-3 ruling, the Court restricted federal judges from issuing nationwide injunctions that block presidential actions across the entire country. The ruling followed a wave of lower court orders aimed at halting several of Trump’s executive actions.
Attorney General Bondi celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision, calling it a victory for executive authority. “This would not have been possible without the tireless work of our legal team,” she said in a post on X (formerly Twitter).
The case that prompted the Court’s ruling involved Trump’s controversial executive order restricting birthright citizenship. Under his policy, children born in the U.S. would only be granted automatic citizenship if at least one parent is a citizen or legal permanent resident. The Supreme Court allowed the order to take limited effect for now, while postponing a final decision until its next term, which begins in October.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, the executive order could affect more than 250,000 births per year if fully enforced.
As both legal battles continue, the outcomes may have significant implications not only for immigration and education policy, but also for the balance of power between states, courts, and the federal government.