What to know about Texas ending in-state tuition for undocumented students
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 TheDream.US, 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.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Fox News
5 hours ago
- Fox News
Extra: Trade Schools And The Future Of America's Labor Force
The Trump Administration has vowed to make 'Make trade schools great again.' Part of their plan includes making billions of dollars available for trade schools by rerouting grant money and adjusting 529 college savings plan laws. This comes at a time when American companies are begging for electricians, welders, and others who can fill the essential jobs needed to fuel growing industries of the future like artificial intelligence. Dr. Jason Altmire, former Pennsylvania Congressman and current President and CEO of Career Education Colleges and Universities, recently joined FOX News Rundown host Jessica Rosenthal to discuss the growing popularity of trade schools and the growing demand for their graduates. Dr. Altmire explained the importance of skilled labor to the economy, how the perception of choosing a trade over college has shifted over the decades, and how AI could impact white and blue-collar jobs. We often must cut interviews short during the week, but we thought you might like to hear the full interview. Today on Fox News Rundown Extra, we will share our entire conversation with Dr. Jason Altmire and allow you to hear even more about the trade schools and the future of America's labor force. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Democrat Senator said Alaska summit was ‘great day' for Russia: Putin was ‘absolved of his crimes in front of the world'
A key senator on the Foreign Relations committee called Donald Trump's Alaska summit with Vladimir Putin a 'disaster' Sunday and blamed the U.S. president for legitimizing his Russian opponent in front of the world. 'It was an embarrassment for the United States. It was a failure. Putin got everything he wanted,' said Chris Murphy, the ranking Democratic member of the Foreign Affairs subcommittee on European security cooperation. Murphy told NBC's Meet the Press that Trump was forced to abandon his main commitment — a call for a ceasefire — during the meeting and was similarly unable to convince Putin to drop demands for Ukraine to cede more territory, something the senator from Connecticut said was 'stunning' to see a U.S. president consider. 'He wanted to be absolved of his war crimes in front of the world. He was invited to the United States — war criminals are not normally invited to the United States of America,' Murphy said. Trump 'walked out of that meeting saying, 'I didn't get a ceasefire. I didn't get a peace deal. And I'm not even considering sanctions,'' the senator continued. 'And so Putin walks away with his photo op, with zero commitments made, and zero consequences. What a great day for Russia.' Murphy's comments to NBC come as two top Trump officials who traveled with the president to Alaska for the summit Friday, Marco Rubio and Steve Witkoff, did the rounds on separate Sunday morning programs defending the outcome of the president's meeting with Putin. The optics of the meeting are being endlessly scrutinized in the mainstream press, partly due to the few specifics released so far about what the two men discussed. Among those moments been picked apart by analysts included the arrival of the Russian president, which was preceded by U.S. troops, in uniform, rolling out a red carpet on the tarmac. On Sunday, Witkoff told CNN'S State of the Union that the U.S. secured what he claimed was a 'game-changing' development in the discussions: Putin's willingness to consider accepting a U.S. security agreement protecting the future sovereignty of Ukraine's borders. This was the first time negotiators were able to gain ground on the issue, he explained. 'We were able to win the following concession: That the United States could offer Article 5-like protection, which is one of the real reasons why Ukraine wants to be in NATO," he said. Witkoff wouldn't specify whether the security guarantee could lead to what Trump and his followers have long opposed — a promise to directly engage U.S. troops in defense of Ukraine should Russia continue crossing Trump's red lines. Murphy, on Sunday, seemed to imply that such a guarantee would be the bare minimum standard necessary for any peace agreement between Ukraine and Russia. 'That [security guarantee] is an essential element of a peace agreement because any commitment that Vladimir Putin makes to not invade Ukraine again isn't worth the paper that it's written on,' said the senator. 'He's made that commitment many times. So yes, there has to be a guarantee that if Putin were to enter Ukraine after a peace settlement, that there would be some force there, a U.S. force, a U.S.-European force there to defend Ukraine.' He would go on to hammer Trump over reports that Witkoff wouldn't confirm when pressed by CNN's Jake Tapper, which revealed that Trump had signaled his own willingness to accept Russian demands for Ukraine to cede the entire occupied Donbas region as part of a potential agreement. Murphy said that the reported development was 'another sense that Putin is just in charge of these negotiations.' Chris Van Hollen, another Democrat on the Foreign Relations panel, was equally critical of Trump's meeting with the Russian president during an interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz on This Week. Heading into Friday's summit, Trump warned of 'severe consequences' if Russia continued to oppose peace efforts and said that he was working towards an immediate ceasefire. Afterwards, he claimed in a Truth Social post that "It was determined by all [in attendance] that the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.' Van Hollen called this news a 'setback' for the U.S.'s European allies and Ukraine, while accusing Trump of being 'flattered' by Putin. 'There's no sugarcoating this. Donald Trump, once again, got played by Vladimir Putin. Vladimir Putin got the red carpet treatment on American soil. But we got no ceasefire, no imminent meeting between Putin and Zelensky,' said Van Hollen. Jake Sullivan, national security adviser to the Biden administration, agreed. "President Trump's stated goals were very simple, get an immediate ceasefire, and in the absence of a ceasefire, impose what he called severe consequences," Sullivan said. "Well, the summit has come and gone. There is no ceasefire. There are no consequences.' Trump is now scheduled to meet Monday with European leaders including Finnish president Alexander Stubb, German chancellor Friedrich Merz, French president Emmanuel Macron and the UK's Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer. Stubb is known for his personal relationship with Trump, and is poised to be on-hand to quell any disputes between Trump and Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky, who will also be in attendance. Zelensky is reported to be wholly opposed to any demand to recognize Russian occupation of the Donbas as legitimate.


CNN
7 hours ago
- CNN
DC students head back to school amid Trump focus on cleaning up juvenile crime in the district
In southeast Washington, DC, children stood in line Friday to receive new backpacks filled with school supplies, while community organizers passed out free hot dogs and hamburgers to teenagers to celebrate the last few days of summer before. But just a few blocks away, the sight of National Guard trucks cut into the celebration — a reminder that the school year will begin under the shadow of federal troops. 'This is not going to go off well … most middle school kids walk to school by themselves. They're going to have to walk through soldiers and police,' Dara Baldwin, a DC-based activist on the Free DC advisory council, told CNN. 'They're going to be fearful for their lives. … They're either not going to want to go to school, or they're going to react to these people in their space.' President Donald Trump's deployment of federal law enforcement to the nation's capital to combat what he has described as 'roving mobs of wild youth' has ignited fear among parents, activists and youth advocates that Black and Latino teens will face heightened policing as they return to class next week. When Trump announced he was placing the District of Columbia's police department under federal control and deploying National Guard troops, he argued that youth crime in DC demanded urgent intervention. According to a report from the DC Policy Center, the juvenile arrest rate in DC is nearly double the national rate. Data from the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council, an independent DC agency that tracks public safety statistics, shows that total juvenile arrests during the first half of 2025 have largely remained consistent with the number in the first half of each year since 2023, when there was an increase after the Covid-19 pandemic. Looking specifically at juvenile arrests for violent offenses, which includes robberies, aggravated assaults and assaults with a deadly weapon, between 2019 and 2020, they dropped from 585 to 347, as did the overall number of arrests in DC during the beginning of the pandemic. That decline was short-lived: The numbers began climbing again in 2022, rising from 466 arrests for violent offenses to 641 in 2023 before dropping again in 2024 to 496, according to the data from the CJCC. Youth advocates cite the city's investment in more resources and programs targeting young people as part of the reason for the drop in arrests for violent offenses. In 2023, DC Mayor Muriel Bowser issued a declaration of a juvenile crime emergency which focused city resources on addressing the issue. This year the DC Council approved stricter juvenile curfews that also give the city's police chief the ability to double down with even stricter emergency short-term curfews. She used those curfews recently around Navy Yard, an area near the Washington Nationals ballpark and the waterfront. 'It's clear that the target is the inner-city youth,' Kelsye Adams, an activist for DC statehood and director of DC Vote, told CNN at a rally outside of the Metropolitan Police Department headquarters on Friday. 'And what I've seen on the news from where the police checkpoints and the neighborhoods that they're going in, they are directly attacking young, Black and brown kids.' The White House says the administrations policies are aimed at making DC safer. 'Washington DC leaders have failed the city's youth – juvenile crime has been a serious concern for residents and local leaders even before President Trump's intervention to Make DC Safe Again,' Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, told CNN in a statement. 'The status quo of ignoring kids committing violent crimes has not worked, it has only exasperated the situation – President Trump is making DC safe again for everyone.' The DC Metropolitan Police Department did not respond to CNN's request for comment. CNN has spoken to more than a dozen DC residents about Trump's crime crackdown and whether it will impact the children in their communities – and some parents say the extra presence could reduce violence. 'I got mixed reactions with that,' Kim Hall, 45, a longtime district resident who has three children in the DC public school system, told CNN at the backpack event in Anacostia. 'To me, it actually makes the street more safe, because a lot of the crime that goes on, especially over there in southwest and southeast, is happening while the kids are going to school or they're coming out of school.' 'If the police is around, there won't be so much of the gun violence,' she added. Anthony Motley, 76, a DC resident who has 10 grandchildren in the school system, told CNN that young people are 'the future, and we need to protect the future. So, whatever we need to do to protect our future, I'm for that.' Others CNN spoke with, including Sharelle Stagg, a DC resident and educator in the public school system, aren't convinced that increased patrols and law enforcement are going to help their children. 'I'm not certain this is the best strategy, especially when you think about just the way that it was rolled out and kind of presented to communities,' Stag said. Tahir Duckett, executive director of the Center for Innovations in Community Safety at Georgetown Law School, agrees that Trump deploying National Guard troops to DC could make violence worse, not better. 'When you have these major shows of force, and you have people who feel like the police aren't actually part of the community, but are more of an occupying force, then you tend to see people not want to cooperate with the police,' he said, which 'can lead to increased crime rates.' Youth advocates also told CNN they are young Black and Brown men will be the most impacted by the larger law enforcement presence. Black children make up more than half of DC's youth population, according to census data. 'I've been brought up into the community where we've seen this often. So it might look different to some other people, but not me, not the community that I come from, and our communities have been targeted for years,' Carlos Wilson, who works with Alliance of Concerned Men, a group that helps inner-city youth and hosted the back to school event in southeast DC, told CNN. He argued that Trump could use the funding for more resources to help young people in this city instead of on an increased law enforcement presence. 'That's what's gonna make it better, more programs, more opportunities for the younger folks. I think that's what's gonna make our community better. Not police presence. We need resources. We need help, not people coming in.'