Texas Dream Act supporters sue to restore in-state tuition for undocumented students
Several law firms and nonprofit organizations have filed a lawsuit against the state of Texas, arguing the law is essential for educational equity.
Student shares personal impact
Among those on the front lines is Oscar Silva, who came to Texas at the age of 1 and has called Garland home ever since.
"My senior year, I remember being terrified because I couldn't land any scholarships," Silva said. "A lot of the scholarships I tried to apply for were only for U.S. citizens, and so that was a significant barrier for me. For the longest, I thought I was just not going to be able to afford college."
With the help of the Texas Dream Act, Silva was able to attend the University of North Texas for his undergraduate degree. He said it also motivated him to pursue a master's degree.
Sense of belonging in college
"Throughout undergrad, I just remember feeling very, very happy that I could attend college, that I could sit in classes with my peers and pretend like everything was normal—that I belonged there just as much as they did," Silva said.
ACLU joins legal effort
The ACLU of Texas is among the groups working to restore the law.
"I feel like we have a very strong argument moving forward," said Valeria Alvarado with the ACLU of Texas. "And what I can confidently also say is that the Texas Dream Act is not going to go away without a fight."
Judge rules law unconstitutional
In June, a federal judge blocked the Texas Dream Act, calling it "unconstitutional and invalid."
Domingo Garcia, who was a state representative in 2001, helped write the bill, which passed with bipartisan support.
Supporters call repeal cruel
"It's been the law of the land, and attempts to repeal it over the years have all failed," Garcia said. "It's just really cruel, manipulative and mean-spirited what is being done by the attorney general and the DOJ."
Student balances school and advocacy
As the issue heads to court, Silva is balancing his final year in a master's program while also joining the group intervening in the lawsuit.
"I want to continue higher ed. I want to finish my master's. I want to see my degrees to the end," Silva said. "I've got to do whatever I can in my power to make sure that my education is not tampered with."
Tuition costs could double
Silva said without the Texas Dream Act, his tuition will nearly double.
According to the University of North Texas' online tuition calculator, a master's degree in accounting costs about $7,600 per year for in-state students. For out-of-state students—now including Silva—it's more than $12,600.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion - We have filed the case that could overturn Wickard and limit Commerce Clause powers
Roscoe Filburn owned a wheat farm in rural Montgomery County, Ohio. When he used his own farm to feed his own family, he fell under the hammer of the federal government. It was 1938, and America was in the throes of the Great Depression and the Dust Bowl. Agricultural commodity prices—and specifically, wheat prices—fluctuated wildly, costing farmers their fortunes, farms, and families. In an effort to stabilize wheat prices, the federal government intervened and artificially capped the amount of wheat each farmer could grow. It sought to shrink the wheat supply while demand remained the same, and thereby increase the wheat price. Under this federal policy, the government eventually fined Filburn. Justifiably skeptical that this was within the federal power, Filburn challenged the fine in court. The case was Wickard v. Filburn — one that lives in infamy and whose effects are felt strongly to this day. Unlike the state governments, the federal government is one of limited and enumerated power: It possesses only the powers specifically granted in the Constitution, and no others. As such, it based its wheat scheme on Congress's power 'to regulate Commerce … among the several States.' Widely known as the 'Interstate Commerce Clause,' as its text indicates, this federal power is restricted to commerce that takes place between states. Wheat and similar commodities are often bought, shipped, and sold across state lines, and their availability within one state can affect markets in others. On its face, then, intervention into the wheat market could seem a reasonable expression of the power to regulate interstate commerce. But the federal government went much further than that. Filburn's case began in 1940, when the federal government had imposed a wheat cap for Filburn's farm. He abided by that cap for wheat he sold on the market, but he retained some additional wheat to feed his family and his animals. Despite this wholly local, non-commercial use of his own wheat, the federal government fined him for exceeding his quota. After two years of proceedings, the Supreme Court notoriously sided with the government. The court's reasoning? By eating wheat he grew himself, Filburn was failing to buy wheat on the national market, and by not buying wheat on the national market, he was engaging in an activity which, if others were to follow suit, could affect that national market. The federal government could therefore regulate even Filburn's family activity on his own farm in Ohio because it could hypothetically affect interstate commerce. Congress and federal agencies have taken that reasoning and run with it ever since. Under the logic of this precedent and ensuing cases, the federal commerce power has stretched to reach virtually every activity under the sun. To this day, the federal government uses these cases to assert a nearly limitless sweep of power. The Commerce Clause has become a catch-all justification for thousands of federal laws and regulations. Agricultural production? Interstate commerce. Public health? Interstate commerce. Obscure spider species? Interstate commerce. Real estate disclosures? Also, somehow, interstate commerce. For decades, public-interest lawyers like ourselves have sought to rework this line of jurisprudence. In April, our firm, the Center for the American Future, filed Corley v. U.S. Department of the Treasury, with the aim of restoring the Constitution's proper balance of power in this space. The plaintiffs in that case, a real estate attorney and a property owner in Lubbock, Texas, want to transfer residential real estate into a legal entity. This should be as simple as filling out the deed, handling the closing details, and signing the paperwork — that is how it has always worked. And real estate is about the most 'local' activity there is. It does not cross state lines, and each property is intrinsically unique. It is a stretch to say that such an activity, especially when no financing has been secured and no money has changed hands, falls within interstate commerce. But, predictably, the federal government has argues otherwise. The Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, known as 'FinCEN,' has put in place roadblocks, rules, penalties, and paperwork for this simple intrastate activity. These extra steps require the disclosure of sensitive information, such as social security numbers, birthdates, closing costs, financing, and other data. FinCEN's claimed purpose is to combat money laundering, but its restrictions apply to every single person making a covered real estate transfer, regardless of whether he or she is suspected of a crime. Most importantly, the regulations apply with no regard to interstate commerce. Even if the property is next-door and is transferred for free, according to FinCEN, the agency can reach it under the Commerce Clause. Our Constitution is clear in restricting federal power. Whether Congress legislates or an executive agency regulates, no part of the federal government may expand beyond the powers set forth in the Constitution. For more than 80 years, those restrictions have been ignored as the federal commerce power has been pushed beyond the bounds of reason. But the Center for the American Future, through carefully crafted legal arguments, hopes to restore the Constitution's careful balance of power. Clayton Calvin is an attorney with the Texas Public Policy Foundation's litigation arm, the Center for the American Future. Matt Miller is a senior attorney in the Center for the American Future. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
43 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Musk calls Bannon a ‘fat, drunken slob' and says he should be arrested as their feud rages on
Elon Musk and Steve Bannon escalated their feud over the July Fourth weekend by exchanging fiery insults over their respective platforms. On Bannon's podcast War Room, the former Trump adviser raged against Musk for polling his X followers about starting a new political party in the United States, saying Musk was being disingenuous and should be deported. 'Only a foreigner could do this,' Bannon said. 'Think about it, he's got up on Twitter right now a poll about starting an American Party – a non-American starting an American Party. No, brother, you're not an American; you're a South African.' 'If we take enough time and prove the facts of that, you should be deported,' Bannon stated. Bannon, a devoted Trump loyalist who went to federal prison for refusing to comply with a congressional subpoena, believes Musk has ulterior motives for being close to the president. He's called for Musk to be investigated multiple times. On Musk's X account, the tech billionaire responded by calling Bannon a 'fat, drunken slob' who should be in prison for committing crimes. 'The fat, drunken slob called Bannon will go back to prison and this time for a long time. He has a lifetime of crime to pay for,' Musk wrote. Musk has been a United States citizen since 2002. Despite the two men being close to Trump at various periods, they have little in common. Unlike Trump's first administration, Bannon does not have a formal role in the White House. But he has still used his platform to bolster Trump and defend him against all attacks. Bannon has been vocal about his disdain for Musk, advocating for the revocation of his government contracts and questioning his citizenship status. Musk, who helped get Trump elected with generous donations, spent several months in the administration before a bitter falling out with the president over their different perspectives on Trump's signature legislation. As a result of the recent falling out, Bannon appears to have upped his attacks on Musk. The hostile relationship between the two escalated specifically because Musk polled his 221 million X followers about launching a new political party, called the 'America Party,' on Independence Day.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
ThinkCareBelieve: Week 24 of America's Victory
Washington, DC, July 05, 2025 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Link to ThinkCareBelieve's Article: has published an article on America's Week 24 under President Trump's leadership. This has been a truly historic week. Alligator Alcatraz went live this week, the Fed got a spanking for not lowering interest rates, the best jobs report ever came out, numerous wins and victories, our lovely First Lady made a visit to a healing garden with some beautiful children and the One Big Beautiful Bill was passed and officially signed into law. Celebrations for Our Nation's 249th Birthday abound and they mark the beginning of a year-long celebration leading up to our 250th Birthday celebration one year from now. The article shows the passing of the One Big Beautiful Bill that brings promise and prosperity to America and fuels its climb into the Golden Age of Prosperity. The signing of the One Big Beautiful Bill has already brought America into a fine style of celebrations. It's time to bring back our love for our country and for us to fall in love with Americana again. Wonderful things to come and good growth, joy and prosperity. Get ready for good things to happen. The article has victories like CNN's report this week that President Trump's approval ratings are so high that they have surpassed those of Ronald Reagan. Eggs have become so plentiful now that Waffle House has announced that its egg surcharge is officially off the menu. The article also has CNBC's report of an incredible 147,000 non-farm jobs this week. Representative Andy Ogles has officially sent a letter to Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum requesting that President Trump be added to Mount Rushmore. This amazing week concluded with an American Freedom Picnic and a roaring American Birthday Fireworks Celebration. For all who love our country, and all who have sacrificed, let us all appreciate this moment together. Let us thank God for being One Nation Under God. This is the beginning of a year-long celebration of our country, and it's return to greatness and the article has President Trump's full plan for all the good that is planned for this year. A moment of prayers for Texas and those devastated by the flood and the search and rescue of the residents and the children that is taking place now. is an outlook. ThinkCareBelieve's mission for Peace advocacy facilitates positive outcomes and expanded possibilities. To achieve Peace, we will find the commonalities between diverse groups and bring the focus on common needs, working together toward shared goals. Activism is an important aspect of ThinkCareBelieve, because public participation and awareness to issues needing exposure to light leads to justice. Improved transparency in government can lead to changes in policy and procedure resulting in more fluid communication between the public and the government that serves them. America needs hope right now, and Americans need to be more involved in their government. ### CONTACT: CONTACT: Joanne COMPANY: ThinkCareBelieve EMAIL: joanne@ WEB: in to access your portfolio
