Undocumented Students Won’t Receive In-State Tuitions
By Selina Xia Zamacois
NEW ORLEANS — The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed a lower court ruling that prevents Texas from enforcing two state statutes that allowed certain undocumented students to pay in‑state tuition at public colleges and universities. The three‑judge panel held that the Texas provisions are expressly preempted by federal immigration law and cannot be defended in court.
The decision, issued July 9, 2026, stems from a lawsuit filed by the United States in 2025 challenging Texas Education Code §§ 54.051(m) and 54.052(a). Those provisions permitted undocumented students who met state residency criteria to receive the same tuition rate as Texas residents. Federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a), prohibits states from granting postsecondary education benefits based on residency to undocumented aliens unless all U.S. citizens, regardless of their state of residence, are eligible for the same benefit.
Texas Governor Greg Abbott responded to this week ruling stating “Texas and the Trump DOJ just secured another major victory for the rule of law. The Fifth Circuit upheld the END of in-state tuition for illegal immigrants in Texas.”
Texas agreed to stop enforcing the statutes and entered a settlement with the federal government. After the settlement, several groups, Students for Affordable Tuition, La Unión del Pueblo Entero (LUPE), Austin Community College, and a student, moved to intervene in the case to defend the state laws and undo the agreement. The district court denied intervention, finding the proposed defenses legally futile because the federal statute clearly preempted the Texas provisions.
On appeal, the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Writing for the court, Judge Jerry E. Smith concluded that the intervenors could not present any viable argument that Texas’s residency based tuition scheme complied with federal law. The opinion emphasized that discounted in‑state tuition is a monetary “postsecondary education benefit”, and that Texas’s system made residency a “but‑for cause” of eligibility for undocumented students.
The court also rejected the argument that Texas satisfied federal requirements because some out‑of‑state U.S. citizens may qualify for in‑state tuition under limited exceptions. The panel said, the law requires every U.S. citizen be eligible for the same benefit if any illegal alien receives it based on residency. Texas’s laws did not meet that standard.
Because the intervenors’ defenses were futile, the Fifth Circuit held that the district court properly denied intervention. The court also dismissed the remaining claims for lack of jurisdiction, leaving the settlement intact and the enforcement bar in place.
The ruling means Texas remains prohibited from applying the two tuition provisions unless Congress amends federal law or the state adopts a tuition policy that complies with nationwide‑eligibility requirement.
