Federal authorities have filed a lawsuit against California, challenging state policies that grant in-state tuition, state-funded scholarships and subsidized loans to students living in the U.S. illegally.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that these programs unlawfully favor noncitizens over U.S. citizens from other states and conflict with federal statutes.
The suit, filed in the Eastern District of California, names Gov. Gavin Newsom (D), the California Attorney General and the governing boards of the University of California, California State University and California Community Colleges.
DOJ officials are seeking a court order to halt enforcement and compel the state to align its programs with federal law.
Attorney General Pam Bondi criticized California’s approach, saying the state “illegally discriminates against American students and families” by extending benefits unavailable to legal residents from other states.
She emphasized that this is the third federal lawsuit against California in a single week on similar issues, pledging that the DOJ will continue taking action until the state complies with federal requirements.
The lawsuit targets two major components of California’s higher education framework, according to the complaint.
First, state law requires all public colleges and universities to provide in-state tuition to students who establish residency, regardless of immigration status.
Second, the California Dream Act allows students residing illegally in the U.S. to access state-funded scholarships and subsidized loans.
Federal officials contend that these measures effectively extend taxpayer-funded financial support to individuals without lawful presence in the country.
Newsom and state officials dismissed the lawsuit as politically motivated. A spokesperson for the governor described the litigation as “meritless” and part of an ongoing federal effort to undermine state priorities, according to NewsNation.
The state maintains that its programs provide crucial opportunities for immigrant families and reflect local educational needs.
The legal challenge comes amid broader federal efforts to restrict public benefits for individuals residing in the country unlawfully.
Executive orders under President Donald Trump, including “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders” and “Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens,” sought to limit both federal and state support for illegal aliens.
The DOJ has pursued similar lawsuits in Texas, Kentucky, Illinois, Oklahoma and Minnesota, although some states, including Texas, opted not to contest the challenges.
Supporters of California’s programs argue the tuition and scholarship benefits provide essential educational opportunities for students who have grown up in the state.
Opponents counter that the policies create unfair advantages for illegal aliens over U.S. citizens and may incentivize further unlawful migration.
Analysts note that the outcome could set a nationwide precedent, influencing how states structure benefits for noncitizen students and shaping future debates over federal oversight, taxpayer equity and immigration policy.
As the case advances, courts will weigh the balance between state discretion in funding education and the federal government’s authority to enforce immigration laws.
A ruling in favor of the DOJ could reshape eligibility rules for in-state tuition and scholarships, impact students who rely on these programs, influence taxpayer obligations and define the legal limits for state-level benefits for noncitizen residents.
Conversely, a state victory would reinforce California’s autonomy in setting educational priorities.
The lawsuit highlights the ongoing tension between state initiatives to expand access to higher education and federal mandates regulating the treatment of noncitizens.
With both legal and political stakes high, the case could carry implications well beyond California, affecting the broader national debate over immigration, public funding and the role of federal oversight in state education policy.
