Undocumented students in Texas are no longer eligible for in-state tuition after Texas agreed Wednesday with the federal government’s demand to stop the practice.

The abrupt end to Texas’ 24-year-old law came hours after the U.S. Department of Justice announced it was suing Texas over its policy of letting undocumented students qualify for lower tuition rates at public universities. Texas quickly asked the court to side with the feds and find that the law was unconstitutional and should be blocked, which did.

Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton claimed credit for the outcome, saying in a statement Wednesday evening that “ending this discriminatory and un-American provision is a major victory for Texas,” echoing the argument made by Trump administration officials.

“Under federal law, schools cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,” U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement Wednesday. “The Justice Department will relentlessly fight to vindicate federal law and ensure that U.S. citizens are not treated like second-class citizens anywhere in the country.”

The Justice Department filed its lawsuit in the Wichita Falls division of the Northern District of Texas, where . ��※��DzԲԴǰ�, appointed by President George W. Bush, has long been a favored judge for the Texas attorney general’s office and conservative litigants.

Texas began granting in-state tuition to undocumented students in 2001, becoming the first state to extend eligibility. A bill to end this practice advanced out of a Texas Senate committee for the first time in a decade this year but stalled before reaching the floor.

The measure, , would have repealed the law, and also required students to cover the difference between in- and out-of-state tuition should their school determine they had been misclassified. It would have allowed universities to withhold their diploma if they don’t pay the difference within 30 days of being notified and if the diploma had not already been granted.

Republican Sen. of Galveston authored the legislation, which would have prohibited universities from using any money to provide undocumented students with scholarships, grants or financial aid. It would have also required universities to report students whom they believe had misrepresented their immigration status to the attorney general’s office and tied their funding to compliance with the law.

Responding to the filing Wednesday, Middleton on social media that he welcomed the lawsuit and hoped the state would settle it with an agreement scrapping eligibility for undocumented migrants.

Middleton is in next year’s GOP primary, as incumbent vacates the seat to run for the U.S. Senate.

The House contemplated similar legislation to Middleton’s bill. Under by state Rep. , R-Angleton, undocumented students 18 or older would have been required to provide proof that they had applied to become a permanent U.S. resident to be eligible for in-state tuition. That measure also died in committee.

To qualify for in-state tuition under the law that was struck down Wednesday, undocumented students must have lived in the state for three years before graduating from high school and for a year before enrolling in college. They must also sign an affidavit stating they will apply for legal resident status as soon as they can.

Texas Higher Education Commissioner Wynn Rosser told lawmakers on the Senate Finance Committee earlier this year that about 19,000 undocumented students have signed that affidavit.

Sen. , R-Georgetown, pressed Rosser to provide more information about students who had signed affidavits, including how many receive financial aid from the state. Rosser said he was unsure.

“We have a constitutional duty regarding K-12, but higher education does not have that duty regarding funding of non-citizens,” Schwertner said. “From a policy perspective, if we’re for big, strong, secure borders and walls, then we should also be looking on the back end of what we incentivize, or not incentivize, individuals that are coming across our borders illegally against federal law and state law.”

Before Wednesday’s ruling, Texas was one of 24 states, including the District of Columbia, to offer in-state tuition to undocumented students, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal.

This issue has come before the courts before. In 2022, a district court ruled that federal law prevented the University of North Texas from offering undocumented immigrants an educational benefit that was not available to all U.S. citizens. The threw out that case on procedural grounds, but noted there likely were “valid preemption challenges to Texas’ scheme.” Trump administration lawyers repeatedly cited that finding throughout Wednesday’s filing.

“States like Texas have been in clear violation of federal law on this issue,” said Robert Henneke, executive director and general counsel at the Texas Public Policy Foundation, the conservative think tank that brought the 2022 lawsuit. “If anything, it’s surprising that this wasn’t brought earlier.

Don Graham, a co-founder of , the largest scholarship program for undocumented students, said these young people already face significant hurdles to get to college. They cannot access federal grants and loans, so legal action to rescind in-state tuition could prevent them from completing or enrolling in college altogether, he noted.

“It’ll mean that some of the brightest young students in the country, some of the most motivated, will be denied an opportunity for higher education,” Graham said. “And it’ll hurt the workforce, it’ll hurt the economy.”

Hundreds of Texas students who have been awarded a scholarship went into nursing and education, professions that are struggling with shortages. Recent from the American Immigration Council suggests rescinding in-state tuition for undocumented students in the state could cost Texas more than $460 million a year from lost wages and spending power.

The loss of thousands of students will also have an immediate financial impact on universities, according to available data. About 20,000 students using the law to enroll at Texas universities paid over $81 million in tuition and fees in 2021, according to a from progressive nonprofit Every Texan. In the wake of the court’s ruling, advocates said stifling those enrollments would create cascading effects.

“This policy has been instrumental in providing access to higher education for all Texas students, regardless of immigration status, and dismantling it would not only harm these students but also undermine the economic and social fabric of our state,” said Judith Cruz, assistant director for the Houston region for EdTrust in Texas.

At least one organization, , which goes by its Spanish acronym FIEL, released a statement saying it would challenge the court’s judgment. “Without in-state tuition, many students who have grown up in Texas, simply will not be able to afford three or four times the tuition other Texas students pay,” FIEL Executive Director Cesar Espinosa said. “This is not just.”

Espinosa was one of dozens of witnesses who spoke against any repeal of the tuition law during a House committee hearing on HB 232 in April. The hearing stretched into the early morning hours as former students relayed how the law changed their lives for the better and gave them opportunities to become successful. In Espinosa’s case, it allowed him and his three siblings — including one who testified alongside him — to go to college in state and maintain successful careers in Texas.

“I’m here 24 years later to tell you that this works, and this is not a giveaway, but rather, this is something that all Texans deserve,” Espinosa said during the April hearing.

This article originally appeared in at . The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at texastribune.org.

The conflict between the state of Maine and the Trump administration over transgender student athletes reached a new pivot point on Monday. As the first of several deadlines set by the federal government has now expired, whether Maine can continue to allow trans athletes to participate in school sports appears likely to be decided by the courts.

Two separate federal agencies determined that Maine is in violation of Title IX based on the Trump administration’s interpretation of the anti-sex discrimination protection.

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued a final warning Monday to the Maine Department of Education regarding its directive for allowing trans girls to participate in girls’ sports.

If the state does not propose an agreement that’s acceptable to the office by April 11, the case will be referred to the Department of Justice, the letter said.

Meanwhile, a by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ civil rights office that found Maine in violation of Title IX for “continuing to unlawfully allow” trans girls to compete in girl’s sports has been referred to the U.S. Department of Justice, according to a Monday from the agency.

In a letter dated March 17, HHS had given Maine a deadline of 10 days to comply with federal guidance. Monday marked ten business days from that warning.

Both agencies determined that Maine had violated federal law after dayslong investigations that included no interviews, while typical investigations take months and are eventually settled with resolution agreements. The probes were launched after Gov. Janet Mills and President Donald Trump had a over the state’s trans athlete policy. Millions of dollars in federal funding might be at risk, depending on how the cases proceed.

“We just need an answer at this point as to, ‘Does the Trump administration have the authority to do what it’s doing when it comes to fast tracking the removal of federal funds?’” said Jackie Wernz, a former OCR lawyer for the Education Department who now represents school districts nationwide in these types of cases.

“This is just unprecedented, and we’re not following the process that we’re used to. So I think it’s going to be really helpful for courts to start weighing in on whether or not they have the authority to do this.”

Meanwhile, Republican state lawmakers said in a news conference on Tuesday that they want the state to repeal trans students’ rights to athletics, locker rooms and bathrooms, and to roll back inclusion of gender as a protected class in the Maine Human Rights Act.

“The problem is that the term gender identity and the Human Rights Act is being interpreted way too broadly by the left,” said Senate Minority Leader Trey Stewart (R-Aroostook). “And what it’s saying is there’s no boundary between men’s and women’s spaces.”

Rep. Michael Soboleski (R- Phillips) said he is introducing a bill to remove consideration of gender identity from the act, and asked Democrats and Mills to support the legislation in order to avoid the risk of losing federal funding.

Earlier this year, Iowa became the first state in the nation to remove civil rights from a state law when its Legislature from its civil rights act.

“This is not sustainable,” Stewart said. “We’re a poor state. We are heavily reliant on federal money. The governor needs to move on this.”

On March 19, the Department of Education’s civil rights office Maine of its noncompliance and proposed a resolution agreement that would require the state to rescind its support of trans athletes, which is currently required by the Maine Human Rights Act. A Cumberland-area school district and the Maine Principals Association, which runs student athletics, that were have already refused to sign the agreement.

This development is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to enforce Title IX provisions concerning gender and athletics. Earlier this year, the administration launched investigations in several other states for similar policies allowing trans athletes to compete in alignment with their gender identity.

Title IX, the federal law banning sex-based discrimination, does not reference trans people directly, but the Trump administration has interpreted Maine’s policy as discrimination against cisgender girls.

Rachel Perera, a fellow in the governance studies program for the Brown Center on Education Policy at national think tank The Brookings Institution, said the Trump administration’s interpretation of Title IX leaves room for questioning. If the policy goes to trial, she said federal courts may come up with a clearer interpretation.

“It’s going to be really important to see how Maine proceeds, because they’re sort of setting the tone in terms of these other states and other localities who are going to be trying to navigate these very same dynamics,” she said.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: info@mainemorningstar.com.

The parsing is part of a package of materials responding to the June in admissions. The education and justice departments — which argued in favor of maintaining racial preferences in admissions — said summer enrichment camps for students from groups underrepresented in college are also allowed, as well as “pathway” programs that guarantee high school graduates a spot in the freshman class. Awarding slots in those programs based on race, however, would “trigger … strict scrutiny” from courts in light of the ruling against Harvard and the University of North Carolina.

“This moment demands a sense of urgency,” U.S. Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona said in a call with reporters. “This moment demands the same courageous commitment to equal opportunity and justice we saw from leaders at the height of the civil rights movement.”

The release of the resources — a and a question-and-answer — is the second formal action the administration has taken on admissions since the decision. Last month, the Education Department held a day-long summit on ways colleges and K-12 schools can continue to legally foster diversity. And in a few weeks, Cardona said, the department will issue a report on strategies colleges already use. 

Rep. Bobby Scott, ranking Democrat on the House education committee, welcomed the guidance, but wants the department to investigate racial disparities in K-12 schools in areas like discipline, and college practices like legacy admissions that have historically favored white students. Following the court’s decision, Lawyers for Civil Rights, a Boston nonprofit, over such policies. 

“This is important because race-conscious admissions policies were able to provide a counterbalance to factors — such as inequitable K-12 schools, racially biased admissions tests, and developmental and legacy admissions — that have discriminatory impact against students of color,” Scott said in a statement. 

He argued that some Republican leaders have misinterpreted the court’s decision, pointing to Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey’s , for example, that racial preferences in scholarships and employment would violate the law. 

Biden officials did not specifically discuss scholarships Monday, but the document suggests institutions review policies — such as application fees, standardized testing requirements, early decision deadlines and prerequisite courses, like calculus — that could prevent Black, Hispanic and low-income students from applying to a selective institution.

Universities can still collect race and ethnicity data to plan which geographic areas to target for recruitment, for example, or where to participate in college fairs, the Biden administration said, so long as the resulting information doesn’t influence admissions decisions

Universities don’t have to “unsee” the racial makeup of their applicants, a senior department official said on the call. Students may continue to discuss race in their admissions essays, and guidance counselors can discuss a student’s battles with discrimination in a letter of recommendation. 

“Although this decision changes the landscape for admissions and higher education, it should not be used as an excuse to turn away from long-standing efforts to make those institutions more inclusive,” said Associate Attorney General Vanita Gupta. 

Richard Kahlenberg, a school integration expert who served as an expert witness for Students for Fair Admissions and is a non-resident scholar at Georgetown University’s McCourt School of Public Policy, said some higher education institutions have taken the court’s ruling seriously and are pursuing “authentic race-neutral alternatives to achieve diversity.” Those “perfectly legal” strategies include increasing financial aid for low-income students and adopting plans like those in that accept a percentage of top students from every high school.

But he said he’s also hearing that some universities are taking the “much riskier route” of basing admissions decisions on what students say about race in their personal essays.

“If universities magically get similar racial numbers without announcing new race-neutral alternatives or showing an increase in socioeconomic diversity,” he said, “I think they’re putting a litigation target on their backs.”