Justice Department Sues New York, Connecticut, and Vermont Over In-State Tuition Policies
The U.S. Department of Justice has filed lawsuits against three Northeastern states.
The complaints target New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.
At issue are state policies that provide in-state tuition rates and financial assistance to individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.
Officials say the policies conflict with federal law.
The Justice Department announced the filings this week.
Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward stated that Congress has long prohibited states from placing illegal aliens above U.S. citizens in access to certain benefits.
“By granting illegal aliens in-state tuition, New York, Vermont, and Connecticut are doing just that,” Woodward said.
“No more.”
The lawsuits seek court orders blocking enforcement of the challenged state laws, regulations, and policies.
Those measures require public colleges and universities to offer in-state tuition to aliens who meet residency requirements, regardless of legal status.
The complaints also challenge programs that extend financial aid and scholarships to the same group.
Federal law at the center of the cases is 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a).
It generally bars states from making postsecondary education benefits available to aliens who are not lawfully present on the basis of state residency, unless the same benefits are available to U.S. citizens without regard to their state of residence.
The Justice Department argues the state policies create unequal treatment.
Out-of-state U.S. citizens often pay significantly higher tuition rates than in-state residents, including those without legal status.
In New York, for example, in-state rates at public universities can be substantially lower than out-of-state charges.
Similar disparities exist in the other two states.
These latest cases bring the total number of such Justice Department lawsuits to 17.
The administration has challenged comparable policies in multiple states.
Some earlier cases have produced favorable rulings for the federal government.
A recent decision by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld restrictions on in-state tuition for those not lawfully present.
The current lawsuits focus on the Second Circuit states of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont.
Officials said the filings complete challenges against every state in that circuit with the contested policies.
State responses have begun to emerge.
New York officials indicated they are reviewing the lawsuit and expressed confidence in the legality of their approach.
Connecticut’s attorney general has publicly criticized the federal action.
Vermont faces similar scrutiny over its statutes.
The disputes highlight ongoing differences between federal immigration policy and certain state education benefits.
Supporters of the state policies often frame them as investments in students who have attended local high schools and plan to contribute to the local economy.
Critics, including the Justice Department, contend the policies incentivize illegal immigration and disadvantage American citizens from other states.
The cases seek declaratory and injunctive relief.
If successful, the lawsuits would prevent the states from continuing to apply the residency-based benefits to individuals who are not lawfully present.
The outcomes will be decided in federal district courts.
Similar litigation elsewhere has already prompted some states to alter or end comparable programs.
The Trump administration has described the broader effort as fulfilling a commitment that benefits denied to U.S. citizens will not be extended to illegal aliens.
Further developments in the New York, Connecticut, and Vermont cases are expected as the litigation proceeds.
Benjamin Harris is a RapidReports front page contributor and editor,proud father of four.
