Date Filed: November 16, 2020
Original Court: 442nd District Court (Denton County); removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Appeals: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Case Status: Closed
CAF represented the Young Conservatives of Texas in challenging tuition rates at the University of North Texas. Like most states, tuition at Texas’s state-run universities is higher for out-of-state students than for students who reside in-state. Texas law allows illegal aliens to qualify for lower in-state tuition even though they are not legally allowed to be Texas residents. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA) prohibits states from giving in-state tuition discounts to illegal immigrants unless all U.S. Citizens are eligible for the discount. The lawsuit argues that Texas law violates the IIRIRA and is invalid under the Supremacy Clause. As a remedy, this lawsuit sought to make non-resident students who are U.S. Citizens eligible for in-state tuition.
The district court agreed that Texas’s law giving in-state tuition to illegal aliens violated federal law. The court issued an injunction requiring the University of North Texas to charge in-state tuition to all U.S. Citizens. However, the Fifth Circuit reversed. It held that the only remedy the IIRIRA provides is to charge illegal aliens the out-of-state tuition rate rather than charging U.S. citizens the in-state tuition rate that illegal aliens receive. One judge issued a compelling dissent explaining why the Young Conservatives of Texas’s position was correct, but it was not enough to convince the Fifth Circuit to rehear the case en banc.
In June 2025, the federal government sued the State of Texas to prohibit state-run universities from giving illegal aliens in-state tuition. That lawsuit heavily relied on CAF’s work in this lawsuit. The State of Texas consented to a judgment and permanent injunction prohibiting in-state tuition for illegal aliens, finally ending this unlawful program.
Case Documents:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendants’ Consolidated Response and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment
Defendants’ Combined Reply in Support Motion for Summary Judgment
Plaintiff’s Surreply in Opposition to Defendant’s Cross Motion for Summary Judgment
Opinion and Order Granting in Part Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment