Latest news with #TexasDreamAct
Yahoo
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Democracy Upside Down
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Last month, President Donald Trump's administration scrapped a long-standing Texas law that provided access to financial aid for 'Dreamers'—undocumented immigrants, brought into this country as children, who grew up here, graduated from local high schools, and are committed to becoming permanent residents. The administration's allies tried and failed to persuade the state legislature, which is controlled by Republicans, to repeal the law, which has had nearly a quarter century of bipartisan support. So the administration made an end run around Texas's democratic process: The Department of Justice hatched a plan with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to kill the law, filing a joint motion that asked a federal court to declare the Texas Dream Act unconstitutional. A judge approved the motion the very same day. The whole process took just six hours. Whatever one's views are on Dreamer policy, the fact is that this maneuver went against the will of the people of Texas. The organization I lead, Democracy Forward, has, along with several other groups, filed a motion to defend the law. Texans deserve to have the constitutionality of their Dream Act judged in court, not killed off via a collaboration between the president and the state attorney general. And even more alarming than the Trump administration's dismantling of this law is that it's part of a broader effort to short-circuit democracy at the state level. State-level democracy is essential to America's federalist system. During another time in U.S. history when a majority of the Supreme Court was imposing barriers to the public's ability to self-govern, Justice Louis D. Brandeis famously observed, 'It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.' Later, Justice William Brennan argued that states have the 'power to impose higher standards' under state law 'than is required under the Federal Constitution.' Throughout America's long history, state-level innovations have pushed the country forward: Some states abolished slavery long before the Civil War, granted women the right to vote before the Nineteenth Amendment was adopted, and legalized marriage equality years before the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Of course, states have not always been on the side of human freedom and progress. Appeals to 'states' rights' have served as rallying cries for enslavers, segregationists, and others seeking to deny the rights of people and communities since the nation's founding. 'No state,' the Fourteenth Amendment proclaimed after the Civil War, shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' When America's system of government works as it should, the federal government steps in to prevent states from undermining human freedom. [David Frum: The courts won't save democracy from Trump] That's what America saw in 1957, when President Dwight Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to implement a Supreme Court ruling to desegregate schools; the governor, an avowed segregationist, had refused to comply. President John F. Kennedy similarly federalized the Alabama National Guard to carry out desegregation orders at the University of Alabama, again over the objection of a pro-segregation governor. Now the president and his political appointees, not a state's governor, are ignoring federal-court orders. In April, a federal court found that the government had exhibited 'a willful disregard for its Order' that planes carrying migrants who had been denied basic due process be turned around until the court could hear the migrants' case. (Democracy Forward and the ACLU represent the migrants in that matter.) Two months later, in early June, Trump federalized the California National Guard and deployed active-duty Marines to Los Angeles without the approval of Governor Gavin Newsom, who argued that local law enforcement was fully capable of managing anti-ICE protests. Trump's move was a federal flex that made a mockery of state sovereignty and democracy, and created more chaos than it solved. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said that what she saw in a local park 'looked like a city under siege, under armed occupation.' To justify its actions in California, the administration invoked Eisenhower's 1957 move to enforce federal-court orders on civil rights. Yet Trump's actions aim for the opposite of Eisenhower's. Instead of using federal power to protect people's rights, Trump is misusing federal power to undermine them. That is democracy upside down. Similarly, when Maine insisted that it would defend transgender athletes' participation on women's college-sports teams, the president brazenly interfered. Maine was following the law as it argued was set forth in Title IX and the state's Human Rights Act, but Trump sought to force a new interpretation of the federal law through executive actions, including a February order. That month, Trump pronounced, 'We are the federal law,' at which point the administration began a process to cut off funding to Maine's public-school meal programs as punishment—funds appropriated by Congress to help children in need. 'See you in court,' Maine Governor Janet Mills told the president. She did, and Maine won. The administration has also attempted to usurp the power that the Constitution provides both Congress and the states. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution mandates that only states and Congress can make or alter the 'times, places, and manner' of holding federal elections. Ignoring that, Trump, in an executive order, has sought to impose federal time, place, and manner requirements that create barriers to the ballot box. Much of this executive order has been blocked by two federal courts in response to litigation filed by 19 states, among other parties. One federal judge found that the requirements Trump is seeking to impose would create time-consuming burdens on states and could chill voter participation— 'the antithesis of Congress's purpose in enacting' federal election laws. (The Trump administration is also pressuring Texas Republicans to redraw congressional districts in the middle of the decade, outside the normal cycle, to skew the midterm elections.) [Adam Serwer: Trump is wearing America down] The Trump administration has called lawsuits filed against its actions 'frivolous' and 'vexatious.' But as with so many of Trump's attacks, this is really a confession. The Texas ploy is just one of many ways the administration is undercutting the checks and balances in the U.S. constitutional system. The administration has eviscerated agencies and programs created by Congress, attacked judges and the legal profession as a whole, and attempted to stifle a free and open press through intimidation tactics. It's all in keeping with a theme: To empower one man, you need to disempower everyone else, everywhere else—including in states where laws are counter to the president's political agenda. What's happening in Texas, California, Maine, and other states goes beyond normal political disagreements or turf spats. This isn't the typical tug-of-war of federalism. The Trump administration is undermining foundational democratic principles and turning what are supposed to be 'laboratories of democracy' into laboratories of repression—something that should have no place in a nation founded on the promise of human freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
22-07-2025
- Politics
- Atlantic
Democracy Upside Down
Last month, President Donald Trump's administration scrapped a long-standing Texas law that provided access to financial aid for 'Dreamers'—undocumented immigrants, brought into this country as children, who grew up here, graduated from local high schools, and are committed to becoming permanent residents. The administration's allies tried and failed to persuade the state legislature, which is controlled by Republicans, to repeal the law, which has had nearly a quarter century of bipartisan support. So the administration made an end run around Texas's democratic process: The Department of Justice hatched a plan with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton to kill the law, filing a joint motion that asked a federal court to declare the Texas Dream Act unconstitutional. A judge approved the motion the very same day. The whole process took just six hours. Whatever one's views are on Dreamer policy, the fact is that this maneuver went against the will of the people of Texas. The organization I lead, Democracy Forward, has, along with several other groups, filed a motion to defend the law. Texans deserve to have the constitutionality of their Dream Act judged in court, not killed off via a collaboration between the president and the state attorney general. And even more alarming than the Trump administration's dismantling of this law is that it's part of a broader effort to short-circuit democracy at the state level. State-level democracy is essential to America's federalist system. During another time in U.S. history when a majority of the Supreme Court was imposing barriers to the public's ability to self-govern, Justice Louis D. Brandeis famously observed, 'It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.' Later, Justice William Brennan argued that states have the 'power to impose higher standards' under state law 'than is required under the Federal Constitution.' Throughout America's long history, state-level innovations have pushed the country forward: Some states abolished slavery long before the Civil War, granted women the right to vote before the Nineteenth Amendment was adopted, and legalized marriage equality years before the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. Of course, states have not always been on the side of human freedom and progress. Appeals to 'states' rights' have served as rallying cries for enslavers, segregationists, and others seeking to deny the rights of people and communities since the nation's founding. 'No state,' the Fourteenth Amendment proclaimed after the Civil War, shall 'deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' When America's system of government works as it should, the federal government steps in to prevent states from undermining human freedom. David Frum: The courts won't save democracy from Trump That's what America saw in 1957, when President Dwight Eisenhower federalized the Arkansas National Guard to implement a Supreme Court ruling to desegregate schools; the governor, an avowed segregationist, had refused to comply. President John F. Kennedy similarly federalized the Alabama National Guard to carry out desegregation orders at the University of Alabama, again over the objection of a pro-segregation governor. Now the president and his political appointees, not a state's governor, are ignoring federal-court orders. In April, a federal court found that the government had exhibited 'a willful disregard for its Order' that planes carrying migrants who had been denied basic due process be turned around until the court could hear the migrants' case. (Democracy Forward and the ACLU represent the migrants in that matter.) Two months later, in early June, Trump federalized the California National Guard and deployed active-duty Marines to Los Angeles without the approval of Governor Gavin Newsom, who argued that local law enforcement was fully capable of managing anti-ICE protests. Trump's move was a federal flex that made a mockery of state sovereignty and democracy, and created more chaos than it solved. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass said that what she saw in a local park 'looked like a city under siege, under armed occupation.' To justify its actions in California, the administration invoked Eisenhower's 1957 move to enforce federal-court orders on civil rights. Yet Trump's actions aim for the opposite of Eisenhower's. Instead of using federal power to protect people's rights, Trump is misusing federal power to undermine them. That is democracy upside down. Similarly, when Maine insisted that it would defend transgender athletes' participation on women's college-sports teams, the president brazenly interfered. Maine was following the law as it argued was set forth in Title IX and the state's Human Rights Act, but Trump sought to force a new interpretation of the federal law through executive actions, including a February order. That month, Trump pronounced, 'We are the federal law,' at which point the administration began a process to cut off funding to Maine's public-school meal programs as punishment—funds appropriated by Congress to help children in need. 'See you in court,' Maine Governor Janet Mills told the president. She did, and Maine won. The administration has also attempted to usurp the power that the Constitution provides both Congress and the states. Article I, Section 4 of the Constitution mandates that only states and Congress can make or alter the 'times, places, and manner' of holding federal elections. Ignoring that, Trump, in an executive order, has sought to impose federal time, place, and manner requirements that create barriers to the ballot box. Much of this executive order has been blocked by two federal courts in response to litigation filed by 19 states, among other parties. One federal judge found that the requirements Trump is seeking to impose would create time-consuming burdens on states and could chill voter participation— 'the antithesis of Congress's purpose in enacting' federal election laws. (The Trump administration is also pressuring Texas Republicans to redraw congressional districts in the middle of the decade, outside the normal cycle, to skew the midterm elections.) Adam Serwer: Trump is wearing America down The Trump administration has called lawsuits filed against its actions 'frivolous' and 'vexatious.' But as with so many of Trump's attacks, this is really a confession. The Texas ploy is just one of many ways the administration is undercutting the checks and balances in the U.S. constitutional system. The administration has eviscerated agencies and programs created by Congress, attacked judges and the legal profession as a whole, and attempted to stifle a free and open press through intimidation tactics. It's all in keeping with a theme: To empower one man, you need to disempower everyone else, everywhere else—including in states where laws are counter to the president's political agenda. What's happening in Texas, California, Maine, and other states goes beyond normal political disagreements or turf spats. This isn't the typical tug-of-war of federalism. The Trump administration is undermining foundational democratic principles and turning what are supposed to be 'laboratories of democracy' into laboratories of repression—something that should have no place in a nation founded on the promise of human freedom and the pursuit of happiness.
CBS News
05-07-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
Texas Dream Act supporters sue to restore in-state tuition for undocumented students
There is a growing legal fight to reinstate the Texas Dream Act, which gave college students without legal residency access to reduced in-state tuition. 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.
Yahoo
26-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
DOJ coordinated with Texas AG to kill Texas Dream Act, Trump official says
WASHINGTON — A top Justice Department official boasted at a private Republican gathering that the Trump administration was able to kill a Texas law that gave undocumented immigrants in-state tuition 'in six hours' by coordinating with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, according to a recording obtained by NBC News. On June 4, the Justice Department sued Texas over the Texas Dream Act, then quickly filed a joint motion with Texas asking a judge to declare the law unconstitutional and permanently enjoin Texas from enforcing the law. The same day, the judge did. Outside organizations sought to invalidate the ruling Tuesday, arguing that the Justice Department and Paxton's office 'colluded to secure an agreed injunction' and engaged in improper 'legal choreography' to obtain their desired outcome. Speaking at the Republican Attorneys General Association a day after the quick court victory, Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli seemed to confirm that. 'So just yesterday, we had filed a lawsuit against Texas, had a consent decree the same day, or consent judgment, and it got granted hours later,' Kambli told participants, according to audio obtained by NBC News. 'And what it did was, because we were able to have that line of communication and talk in advance, a statute that's been a problem for the state for 24 years, we got rid of it in six hours.' Kambli, who previously worked for Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, added that the Justice Department has 'good relationships' with state attorneys general, which allows it to 'get things done.' Kambli also said the second Trump administration 'is learning how to be offensive-minded," according to the audio. 'I think that was the biggest critique the first time around in the first Trump administration — there were a lot of missed opportunities to wield federal government power for the things that we value that just never happened,' Kambli said. 'But this time we've brought in a lot of people from state AG world that have done that kind of litigation, know how to do it and have been doing it.' Paxton's office did not respond to a request for comment. A Justice Department spokesman did not dispute that Kambli made the statements and said it was 'pretty standard' for Justice Department lawyers to notify state attorneys general of federal lawsuits ahead of time. He cited a Justice Department policy that providing fair warning to state attorneys general before filing lawsuits could 'resolve matters prior to litigation.' The Justice Department filed the lawsuit before U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor, a George W. Bush nominee in the Wichita Falls Division in the Northern District of Texas whose court has become a destination for conservative litigants seeking favorable outcomes. The groups Democracy Forward, the ACLU Foundation of Texas and the National Immigration Law Center filed a motion Tuesday on behalf of La Unión del Pueblo Entero, a union founded by César Chávez. They argued that the sequence of events 'compels one conclusion: the United States and the Texas Attorney General colluded to predetermine the outcome of the case.' The motion added: 'The founders did not design our adversarial system for shadowboxing between co-parties. The system demands opposition, argument, and deliberation — not consent decrees masquerading as litigation." Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward, criticized Paxton for not defending the bipartisan Texas Dream Act, which the Legislature passed and Gov. Rick Perry signed more than two decades ago. She noted that the Legislature had declined to repeal the law. Paxton recently announced that he is going to challenge U.S. Sen. John Cornyn in the Republican primary next year — a GOP-versus-GOP battle between two men who have been sparring for years and vying for President Donald Trump's attention. 'Instead of defending the law of Texas ... Attorney General Paxton colluded with the Trump-Vance administration to try to eliminate the law through the courts,' Perryman said in a statement. 'This maneuver is a misuse of the courts. If Attorney General Paxton will not defend Texans, we will. We are committed to ensuring that this cynical move is opposed, to defending the Texas Dream Act, and to supporting the courage of our clients.' Carl Tobias of the University of Richmond School of Law said the heads of the Texas House and Senate should be concerned that Paxton's office declined to defend a state law. "The whole American premise of settling a case is that you have people who have conflicting interests and that's why they're in court to begin with," Tobias said. "But of course, we know for political reasons, they're probably not." Saikrishna Prakash of the University of Virginia School of Law, who has researched the duty of state attorneys general to defend laws in all 50 states, said more attorneys general are willing to say laws are unconstitutional. "Part of the reason why they're more willing to do that is a political reason, that they want to be senator or a governor," he said. Prakash said that across Republican and Democratic presidential administrations, there has recently been a tendency to settle when a litigant takes a position the administration supports. Administrations also want settlements that will bind the next president to policies their parties support. "In my mind, it's not a good way to run a railroad, whether done by Biden or by Trump," Prakash said. Meanwhile, the Trump administration is suing more states over in-state tuition policies for undocumented students. The Justice Department sued Kentucky last week over its policy of giving in-state tuition to undocumented migrants. On Wednesday, the Justice Department sued the state of Minnesota over its law doing the same. In both instances, the Justice Department pointed to the outcome in the Texas case as justification. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What to know about Texas ending in-state tuition for undocumented students
Texas will no longer allow students living in the state who are undocumented to pay in-state tuition following demands from the Trump administration to end the policy. Soon after the federal government sued Texas last week over a state law allowing the practice, Texas quickly asked the court to side with the feds and deem the law unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor's ruling did just that and immediately blocked the law. This is what is known so far about the ruling and its implications. This story will be updated as more information becomes available. Under the 2001 Texas Dream Act, Texas university and community college applicants who lived in the state three years before graduating from high school (or receiving an equivalent diploma) could seek in-state tuition, even if they were not permanent residents or U.S. citizens. To qualify, those students had to sign an affidavit stating that they would apply to become a permanent U.S. resident as soon as they became eligible. More than 19,500 students in the state signed this affidavit in 2023, according to the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board. This figure, however, includes not only undocumented students but also students with visas allowing them to legally accompany family members who have been approved to work in the U.S., according to state data. [Undocumented students rethink their college dreams after Texas cuts their access to cheaper tuition] Last week's ruling specifically blocks the Texas law 'as applied to aliens who are not lawfully present in the United States.' Because the Texas Dream Act didn't require tracking a student's immigration status, it is currently unclear how many affidavit signers are undocumented students or how colleges would determine which students no longer qualify for in-state tuition. Students enrolled in summer classes are not yet expected to be affected since tuition bills and financial aid for those courses have already been distributed. The federal ruling blocked the law immediately. The ruling was final, and Texas indicated it will not seek an appeal. A group of undocumented students on Wednesday asked the federal judge in charge of the case to let them intervene in the case, the first step in their ultimate goal to overturn the ruling. If U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor doesn't allow them, they could appeal to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. 'The 5th Circuit's obviously a very conservative court, but part of that conservatism is a pretty limited view of the role the courts should play in legislation,' said David Coale, a Dallas appellate lawyer. 'It's a tricky case for them to review.' The organization Immigrant Families and Students in the Fight, which goes by its Spanish acronym FIEL, also said it was considering its options to challenge the ruling. Executive director Cesar Espinosa said last week the group was talking with their lawyers to figure out how to bring a lawsuit. How long a student has been living in Texas is one of the biggest factors in determining a student's tuition, or coursework bill. (Tuition does not account for other college fees and housing and living costs.) Each college sets their own tuition residency criteria, according to the THECB. Community colleges may also offer even lower tuition rates for people who live within their tax district. Students from outside the state or country can, in some cases, pay almost four times more than in-state students. At the University of Texas at Austin, the state's flagship university, the flat-rate tuition for the fall 2025 and spring 2026 semesters costs $15,848 more for an out-of-state liberal arts student taking 12 or more credit hours than it would for a student with similar course work paying in-state tuition rates, according to the university. Tuition also costs $18,765 more for an out-of-state student studying business and $17,713 more for engineering. At Lone Star College in Houston, tuition for 12 credit hours for an out-of-state or international student costs $768 more than for an in-state student, and $2,424 more than for a student who lives within the college's tax district, according to the community college's 2025-26 rates. The Texas Tribune asked the six four-year universities and three community college districts with the most affidavit signers if they will request affected students who had already been billed or made a payment for summer classes to immediately pay the difference between in- and out-of-state tuition; what will happen if they can't pay; and if there will be a grace period. They were the University of Texas-Rio Grande Valley, UT-Dallas, UT-Arlington, UT-Austin, Texas A&M, University of Houston, Dallas College District, Lone Star College District and Houston Community College. Five schools have responded. UT-Dallas and the UH and Lone Star College systems said they are still working to understand what the court ruling means for their students and colleges. 'At this time, the full impact on UH System institutions and our students remains unclear,' a UH official said. A spokesperson for the Texas A&M University System said officials were coordinating with administrators across its campuses 'to gather information needed to develop an appropriate plan to implement the requirements of the order.' A UT-RGV spokesperson said officials would notify affected students directly, but did not offer specifics. 'Our priority and focus are on minimizing disruption to student success consistent with applicable law and helping students navigate this transition with clarity and care,' the spokesperson said in a statement. The full implications of the ruling may not be known until July or August, said Andrea Guengerich Harper, chief program strategy officer for Breakthrough Central Texas, which helps students who are the first in their family to pursue a post-secondary education. But she worries that students are already getting discouraged from continuing in higher education. 'Regardless of how this plays out in the fall, this is already having a negative impact,' Guengerich Harper said. 'It is uncertainty and fear and will knock students off of these post-secondary pathways that they are already enrolled in and committing to and have been working hard for years towards.' As they await for more information, Breakthrough Central Texas' team has started to help students search for other sources of financial support or lower-cost education options that might fit each students' needs and situation. 'No one should be withdrawing, but I think you know planning is going to be necessary, and so [students should start] to think about what other options they have in terms of cheaper pathways potentially to pursue their same credentials, those alternative ways to access dollars,' said Will Davies, director of policy and research for Breakthrough Central Texas. Taking general courses at a community college may be a more affordable option for new or younger students, but those colleges may not offer the more specialized courses upperclassmen need to finish their bachelor's degrees. Private universities have a single tuition rate for all their students and can offer merit or need-based scholarships or grants to high-performing students. However, they are generally more expensive and selective, making them out of reach for most students, Guengerich Harper said. Some private organizations, such as provide scholarships for undocumented students, including in states where in-state tuition is not an option for them. But Davies said he worries a few foundations or funds won't be able to cover the vast need among undocumented students in Texas. Since Texas became the first state to extend in-state tuition eligibility to undocumented students in 2001, Republican state lawmakers have filed at least 15 bills to undo the state law. While those efforts failed, immigrant rights advocates worried the push to repeal the law would gain more traction during the 2025 legislative session as the Trump administration promised to ramp up immigration enforcement and Texas sought to match its pace. The bill was voted out of committee for the first time in a decade, but failed to advance any further. Immigrant rights advocates' relief was short-lived. They were caught off guard when the Justice Department sued Texas last week noting that U.S. citizens living outside of Texas don't qualify for in-state tuition in the state's public universities. The feds argued that Texas should not offer undocumented students any benefit not afforded to U.S. citizens. The state agreed and asked the judge overseeing the case to side with the federal government, which he did and declared the law unconstitutional. Some legal experts have said the speedy way in which the case was resolved makes it seem like federal and state attorneys colluded to coordinate the outcome. Monica Andrade, an attorney and director of state policy and legal strategy at the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, said the argument that undocumented students were receiving benefits denied to U.S. citizens is false and misleading because, under the Texas Dreamer Act, both groups of people needed to meet the same criteria to qualify for in-state tuition. Since President Donald Trump's election in November, several states have moved to end similar tuition policies for undocumented students, Inside Higher Education reported. In February, Florida passed a law that will eliminate in-state tuition for undocumented students starting July 1. Lawmakers in Michigan and Minnesota also filed similar bills. Meanwhile, some states like Indiana and New Mexico have sought to expand in-state tuition eligibility. The Trump administration and Republicans have sought to end other benefits for immigrants. Under congressional and White House efforts, families with mixed immigration statuses — like those who have some children who are U.S. citizens and parents who are either undocumented or authorized immigrants, like refugees and asylum seekers — could be restricted from accessing programs like Medicaid, Medicare and federally subsidized housing. Texas in recent years has increasingly mirrored Trump's aggressive immigration agenda, increasing its law enforcement presence and building its own wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. Disclosure: Houston Community College, Lone Star College, Texas A&M University, Texas A&M University System, University of Texas at Austin and University of Houston have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here. Big news: 20 more speakers join the TribFest lineup! New additions include Margaret Spellings, former U.S. secretary of education and CEO of the Bipartisan Policy Center; Michael Curry, former presiding bishop and primate of The Episcopal Church; Beto O'Rourke, former U.S. Representative, D-El Paso; Joe Lonsdale, entrepreneur, founder and managing partner at 8VC; and Katie Phang, journalist and trial lawyer. Get tickets. TribFest 2025 is presented by JPMorganChase.
