Texas Ends In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students: Policy Shift and Its Immediate Impact
In a move that is reverberating across the nation, Texas has officially terminated its longstanding policy granting in-state tuition to undocumented immigrant students, including thousands of Dreamers, at public colleges and universities. This pivotal change—announced by Governor Greg Abbott on June 4, 2025—marks the end of a two-decade-old practice that helped an estimated 57,000 students pursue higher education in the state’s vast public university system. The policy shift came swiftly after the U.S. Department of Justice, following a broader Trump-era push against state-level immigrant protections, filed a lawsuit alleging the program violated the U.S. Constitution and federal immigration laws. Hours after the suit was filed, the governor announced the immediate termination of the program, underscoring the legal and political pressure on Texas leaders this summer.
The reaction from students, educators, and advocates has been swift and impassioned. Many see the rollback as a significant setback for educational equity and economic mobility among undocumented youth who have called Texas home for most of their lives. The Department of Justice’s lawsuit triggered a rapid response: U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor, a conservative judge in the Northern District of Texas favored by state Republican officials, issued a permanent injunction blocking Texas’s in-state tuition policy. Supporters of the legal challenge argue that providing in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants puts out-of-state U.S. citizens at a disadvantage, while critics maintain that it tears apart opportunities for children who have grown up as Texans.
The Texas Dream Act of 2001, previously hailed for its inclusive approach, now stands as a relic in a shifting political and legal landscape that may put similar policies in 24 other states at risk.
“This is a profound loss for educational access in Texas, but also a moment to reflect on how state-level policies can shape the future for students who contribute so much to our communities,” said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, Deputy Director of Advocacy for United We Dream, a nonprofit supporting immigrant youth.
For the 57,000 undocumented students currently enrolled in Texas’s public universities—out of nearly 700,000 total enrollees—the ruling creates uncertainty about their financial future and, for many, their ability to remain in school. Most are now expected to pay out-of-state tuition rates, which can be triple the cost of in-state rates, further limiting access to higher education for a population already navigating immense barriers.
Main Narrative: Legal Battles, Legislative Shifts, and the Broader National Ramifications for Immigrant Students
The end of in-state tuition for Dreamers in Texas did not occur in a vacuum. The suit filed by the Department of Justice reflects a persistent federal push—from the Trump administration through recent years—to align state education policies with stricter interpretations of federal immigration law. This approach echoes previous executive orders aimed at restricting state-based benefits for undocumented immigrants, including policies that prohibit enrollment in federal health care insurance programs and curtailment of DACA protections.
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (Republican) played a critical role by declining to defend the state’s own law and instead supporting the DOJ lawsuit, effectively paving the way for the federal court’s intervention. This unusual move led U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor to issue a final injunction, cementing the legal precedent in place. Judge O’Connor, whose court in the Wichita Falls division has become a favored venue for conservative legal challenges, cited the need to uphold federal law over what he termed “improper benefits” to noncitizens.
At the same time, policymakers within the Texas legislature have advanced measures to further tighten eligibility and oversight. Senate Bill 1798, for instance, proposed a strict regime requiring universities to collect the difference in tuition fees if a student was misclassified, allowing for diploma holds, and mandating reporting of suspected misrepresentation of immigration status. The bill’s provisions amplified the chilling effect on students even before the court ruling.
“We are seeing a clear alignment between court rulings, legislative efforts, and executive branch interventions all working in tandem to restrict access to education for undocumented students,” stated Thomas Saenz, president of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), in reaction to the decision.
Nationally, the stakes are high. Texas’s move may now inspire similar legal challenges in up to 24 other states that offer in-state rates to undocumented students. Already, some advocacy groups fear a domino effect that could undermine years of progress helping immigrant youth access higher education. Opponents, meanwhile, argue that such policies unfairly reward individuals who lack legal status while out-of-state citizens pay steeper bills.
As this debate unfolds, universities and immigrant advocacy groups emphasize that these students—many of whom arrived as children—are integral to Texas’s (and America’s) economic and civic life. Removing financial barriers to education, they argue, is critical not only for personal advancement but for building stronger communities.
Contextual Background: History of the Texas Dream Act and National Immigration Policy Shifts
Understanding how Texas arrived at this crossroads requires a look back to the origins of its Dream Act. In 2001, under then-Governor Rick Perry (Republican), Texas became the first state to pass legislation granting in-state tuition to undocumented students who graduated from Texas high schools and lived in the state for a set period. Perry, facing resistance during his 2012 presidential run, famously defended the law, saying that those who opposed it “did not have a heart.” For over two decades, the Texas law provided a lifeline to educational attainment for thousands of students—many of whom knew no home except Texas.
The national climate shifted as immigration reform faltered in Congress. The advent of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in 2012 granted temporary protection and work permits to eligible youth, but did not ensure access to affordable higher education. Whereas federal law, through the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), restricts state benefits to undocumented immigrants unless specifically legislated, Texas and similar states carved exceptions through deliberate local action. Until now, those exceptions stood as bulwarks against a one-size-fits-all federal approach.
“Texas’s 2001 law stood as a beacon of pragmatic, bipartisan social policy that recognized the value of investing in all children educated in our schools. It’s tragic to see that legacy reversed by federal litigation instead of legislative debate,” commented Dr. Daniel Martinez, a professor of immigration policy at the University of Texas.
The new legal precedent threatens to roll back long-standing commitments to the state’s immigrant youth. As the Associated Press reports, critics argue the move unduly harms access and economic opportunity, while supporters insist it rectifies an alleged imbalance. In the coming months, universities, advocates, and, above all, the Dreamers themselves will grapple with the short- and long-term effects of a decision that has transformed the landscape of educational access and immigration in Texas and beyond.
Hope persists, however, among progressive leaders and organizations. They are rallying around the belief that communities can organize, advocate, and eventually restore pathways to education—affirming the principle that investing in young people strengthens states, economies, and democracy itself.