DOJ Sues Arizona Over Voter-Approved In-State Tuition For Illegal Immigrants

The Trump administration sued the State of Arizona and the Arizona Board of Regents on Thursday, asking a federal judge to strike down the state’s voter-approved law allowing students without lawful immigration status to qualify for in-state tuition and state-funded financial aid.

The 14-page complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona alleges Proposition 308 violates the Supremacy Clause because it makes some students who are in the country illegally eligible for tuition and financial aid benefits that are unavailable on the same terms to U.S. citizens living outside Arizona.

The Justice Department filed the Arizona case alongside lawsuits against New Mexico, Oregon and Washington, bringing the administration’s total number of challenges to state in-state tuition laws to 21, according to a DOJ release.

🚨The Department of Justice Files Complaints Against Arizona, New Mexico, Oregon, and Washington Challenging State Laws that Provide In-State Tuition to Illegal Aliens

“Over 30 years ago, Congress made clear that States cannot put illegal aliens before our Nation’s own… pic.twitter.com/B1ASkH3qsh

— U.S. Department of Justice (@TheJusticeDept) August 27, 2026

“Over 30 years ago, Congress made clear that States cannot put illegal aliens before our Nation’s own citizens,” Associate Attorney General Stanley E. Woodward, Jr., said in a statement. “By granting illegal aliens in-state tuition, Washington, Oregon, New Mexico, and Arizona are pushing citizens to the side and ignoring federal law. No more. As of today, we have now sued 21 states who we allege were thwarting Congress’s clear prohibition on placing aliens over citizens. Our efforts will not cease until President Trump’s promise is fulfilled: illegal aliens will not receive benefits denied to American citizens.”

At the center of the case is 8 U.S.C. § 1623, which bars a person who is not lawfully present from receiving a postsecondary-education benefit “on the basis of residence” unless U.S. citizens can receive the same benefit regardless of where they live. Congress enacted the provision in 1996 and made it applicable to benefits provided beginning July 1, 1998.

President Donald Trump’s April 2025 executive order on the “Equal Treatment of Americans” directed the attorney general to act against state policies favoring noncitizens over groups of American citizens when those policies are unlawful or preempted by federal law. The order specifically identified state laws providing in-state college tuition to noncitizens while denying it to out-of-state American citizens.

Arizona voters approved Proposition 308 in 2022 with 51.24% of the vote. The measure amended A.R.S. § 15-1803 to provide in-state tuition at Arizona’s public universities and community colleges to students who attended an Arizona public or private high school or homeschool equivalent while physically present in the state for at least two years and graduated or obtained a high school equivalency diploma in Arizona. The law states that “[p]ersons without lawful immigration status are eligible” if they satisfy those requirements.

The dispute turns on whether those school-attendance requirements make eligibility dependent on Arizona residence.

The Justice Department argues that the two-year attendance rule is a “near-perfect proxy for residence” because Arizona public schools generally require documents establishing a student’s residency when the student enrolls. The federal complaint alleges that the practical result is a lower tuition rate for students living in Arizona without lawful status while American citizens from other states can be charged nonresident rates.

Arizona Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes reached the opposite conclusion in an August 2025 formal legal opinion. Mayes wrote that Proposition 308 bases eligibility on where a student attended and completed high school, without making the student’s residence an element of the test.

Her opinion said an Arizona high school graduate could move to another state and remain eligible under Proposition 308 upon returning for college. It also said a current Arizona resident could fail to qualify under the measure after attending high school elsewhere. Mayes cited a California Supreme Court decision upholding a similar attendance-and-graduation framework because its criteria were separate from residence.

Mayes vowed Friday to defend the law and said Arizona voters have the authority to establish the state’s tuition rules.

“Fundamentally, this is about state’s rights and I will vigorously defend Arizona’s right to set its own rules,” Mayes said in a statement issued by her office.

Arizona Board of Regents spokeswoman Megan Gilbertson said the board is reviewing the case and will work with state leaders on its response. The board is carrying out state law, she told the Arizona Daily Star.

The Board of Regents oversees Arizona State University, Northern Arizona University and the University of Arizona. The challenged statute also governs in-state tuition at Arizona’s public community colleges. The complaint cites Maricopa County Community College District and Pima Community College policies that DOJ alleges allow qualifying students without lawful status to receive state-funded scholarships or other financial assistance.

DOJ’s filing relies in part on a January Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting (AZCIR) review that found at least 720 illegal immigrant students received in-state tuition across seven reporting Arizona institutions in fall 2025. Fourteen of the 22 schools contacted did not track use of the law, and one did not respond, according to AZCIR.

The outlet reported that there are an estimated 11,000 illegal immigrant students enrolled in higher education in Arizona, with about 1,000 graduating from high school annually.

The reported total included 432 students at Arizona State University, nearly 200 at Pima Community College and fewer than 70 at the University of Arizona. Applying a roughly $24,000 difference between resident and nonresident tuition at ASU to the 432 students, the Justice Department estimated that they received approximately $10.5 million in reduced tuition during the year.

“This is a simple matter of federal law: colleges cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,” said Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “This Department of Justice will not tolerate American students being treated like second-class citizens in their own country.”

The current dispute follows an earlier Arizona case involving recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals. In 2018, the Arizona Supreme Court held that DACA recipients were not eligible for in-state tuition under the federal statute and Arizona’s then-existing law. Proposition 308 later created the high-school attendance and graduation pathway now being challenged by the federal government.

DOJ said courts have entered favorable orders in five of its similar cases involving Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Nebraska and Illinois. The Arizona complaint seeks a declaration that A.R.S. § 15-1803 is preempted and unconstitutional, a permanent injunction against its enforcement, and the federal government’s costs and fees. No court has ruled on the merits of the Arizona case.