Texas ends in-state tuition for undocumented students after court settlement

Texas has ended its two-decade-old policy allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities. The move follows a consent judgment between Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton and the U.S. Department of Justice, which filed a complaint in June seeking to halt the 2001 Texas Dream Act.

The decision affects thousands of students who had previously benefited from the policy. Legal experts, educators, and advocates say this could have significant consequences for access to higher education for immigrants in Texas and may influence similar actions in other states.

“The repeal of the Texas Dream Act is an attack on students who have grown up here and call Texas home, and it follows other cruel decisions in the state that have jeopardized the safety and rights of children and young people, particularly immigrant youth,” said Juan José Martinez-Guevara, United We Dream’s Texas advocacy manager.

Martinez-Guevara referenced recent federal actions including lifting restrictions on immigration enforcement at sensitive locations such as schools, churches, and hospitals. He also cited specific incidents like the detention of a California fourth-grader attending an immigration hearing in Houston and the suicide of an 11-year-old Texan after bullying related to her family’s immigration status.

“Students of all ages in Texas are being robbed of their freedom to learn and the right to receive a safe and peaceful childhood because of their immigration status,” Martinez-Guevara said. “Just as Texas was the first state to pass a Dream Act in 2001, later inspiring 23 other states and the District of Columbia to pass similar laws, this wrongful and undemocratic repeal of the law is now being pushed as a blueprint to undemocratically end in-state tuition, militarize college campuses and persecute students in other states.”

States such as Kentucky and Minnesota are also facing scrutiny over their tuition policies for undocumented students. Martinez-Guevara noted that Texas has become a testing ground for proposals from Project 2025, an initiative led by The Heritage Foundation that outlines conservative priorities for future administrations.

In response to the repeal, several organizations—including ACLU of Texas, Texas Civil Rights Project, Democracy Forward, National Immigration Law Center, and Dallas-based law firm Lynn Pinker Hurst & Schwegmann—filed a motion seeking to block the policy change due to lack of input from affected communities.

“If Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton will not fight for the policy, then we will,” said Valeria Alvarado from ACLU of Texas’ legal team.

Alvarado pointed out confusion among Texans about how the repeal will affect them. Some students have already received bills for fall semester tuition under new rates. There are concerns that even citizens might see increased costs if enrollment drops lead to financial shortfalls at colleges. According to United We Dream estimates cited by Alvarado, recipients under the Dream Act make up about 1.5 percent of college students statewide but contribute $5.4 billion annually in state and local taxes—funds that support educational institutions.

“These students add significantly to the overall tax revenue of the state and to the funding that these institutions rely on,” Alvarado said.

Educators say they worry about long-term impacts on both individual students’ futures and workforce readiness across Texas. Rosie Kurtz, a high school math teacher with Dallas Independent School District, described helping immigrant seniors plan for college—a process now complicated by rising costs due to loss of eligibility for in-state tuition.

“Part of my job is to motivate them to go out and do something with their life, tell them that they can achieve their dreams,” she said. “How do you motivate students to go on and do their math classes if they don’t think that they can afford to take a math class in college?”

Kurtz added: “And the idea that that could all be snatched away from them in such a cruel fashion is demotivating to the whole educators’ mindset,” warning this could ultimately weaken skills within Texas' workforce.

Ovidia Molina—president of the Texas State Teachers Association (TSTA), affiliated with NEA—said broad support existed when Republican Governor Rick Perry signed The Dream Act into law with bipartisan backing more than twenty years ago.

“Educators and community members, families, businesspeople — they all wanted this,” Molina said. “They knew that it was good for Texas.”

Gladys Fátima Márquez from NEA’s executive committee argued efforts like these are part of wider campaigns against public education: “We know exactly why public education lies at the core of their attacks...because a public, free universal education...is a threat to authoritarianism...That’s why they want to dismantle...public education.”

Two undocumented students shared personal stories about how losing access threatens their academic progress or career goals; one credited TheDream.US scholarship program with making university attendance possible after community college but now faces uncertainty ahead graduation; another DACA recipient with a microbiology degree described new obstacles toward pursuing further studies amid shifting legal protections.

Krystal Gómez from Texas Immigration Law Council warned about inconsistent guidance provided by state officials since repeal took effect: “Texas has provided virtually no guidance...just two brief memos from [the] higher education board...No definitions; no trainings.” She reported confusion among university staff regarding student eligibility—sometimes resulting in DACA holders being charged out-of-state rates or denied registration entirely—and raised privacy concerns over rushed requests for sensitive documents.

“This isn’t implementation,” Gomez said. “It’s chaos.”

Her organization is tracking institutional responses while advocating clearer policies: “Texas may be the testing ground for attacks on educational access nationwide but we intend [for] it [to] be where this assault on opportunity hits a wall...The question before us isn’t just about tuition rates—it’s about whether we’re going [to] allow fear & confusion replace clear law & basic fairness.”