DOJ Battles Maryland Over College Benefits

FBI emblem on a beige building facade — Photo: Jonathan Weiss / Shutterstock

The Justice Department’s lawsuit against Maryland over in‑state tuition for undocumented students is not a technical skirmish over college pricing; it is a deliberate test case for how far a presidential administration can use federal law to override long‑standing state decisions about who counts as a resident and who deserves affordable access to higher education.

At a Glance

The Trump administration’s DOJ has sued Maryland in federal court, arguing the state’s “Maryland Dream Act” violates 8 U.S.C. § 1623 by giving resident tuition and state aid to undocumented students that out‑of‑state U.S. citizens cannot receive.
Maryland’s law, in place since 2011, ties in‑state rates to local high school graduation and state taxpaying, extending eligibility “regardless of immigration status” to students who grew up and whose families contribute in Maryland.
The case sits inside a wider federal campaign: by mid‑2026 DOJ had filed at least 13 similar suits against state tuition‑equity laws, backed by a Trump executive order directing the Attorney General to target state policies that “favor aliens over Americans.”
At the heart of the dispute is a contested reading of § 1623: DOJ says it flatly preempts state rules giving undocumented students any tuition benefit that nonresident citizens do not get; states and many scholars argue Congress left room for carefully crafted residency‑based benefits.
Whatever the outcome, the Maryland case will shape the legal boundaries for tuition equity nationwide—either cementing a new, restrictive reading of federal law or reaffirming states’ ability to treat long‑time undocumented residents like other local students.

What DOJ Is Challenging: Maryland’s Tuition and Aid Rules for Undocumented Students

The federal complaint filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland targets a cluster of state provisions, centered on Education Article § 15‑106.8—widely known as the Maryland Dream Act—and implementing regulations of the Maryland Higher Education Commission (MHEC). Those provisions exempt qualifying students from paying the “nonresident tuition differential,” effectively letting them pay in‑state rates at public colleges and, via MHEC’s “OneApp,” access state grants and scholarships.

Maryland did not simply declare undocumented students “residents” in one stroke. The statute and institutional policies build a multi‑step eligibility framework that applies to citizens and non‑citizens alike, except for certain nonimmigrant visa holders. To qualify, a student must have attended a Maryland high school, graduated (or earned a GED) in Maryland, enrolled at a Maryland public institution within a set window—typically six years—and show that the student or a parent or guardian filed Maryland income tax returns for a multi‑year period, usually three years before the academic year in which the exemption would apply. Applicants also sign an affidavit promising to apply for permanent residency when eligible and, if required, document registration with the Selective Service.

In practice, this framework means a narrow group of students—those who have spent years in Maryland schools and whose families have supported Maryland’s tax base—can access in‑state tuition despite lacking federal immigration status. Maryland has also linked this eligibility to state aid: by 2021–22, qualified children of undocumented immigrants eligible under § 15‑106.8 could apply for various state grants and scholarships through the MHEC OneApp. DOJ’s lawsuit aims to halt both the tuition benefit and the related state aid.

The DOJ’s Legal Theory: Federal Preemption and “Treatment of Americans”

DOJ’s complaint in the Maryland case is built on a straightforward but aggressive reading of 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a), a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA). Section 1623 states that a state “may not provide a postsecondary education benefit to an alien not lawfully present in the United States on the basis of residence within the state” unless the same benefit is available to all U.S. citizens regardless of state residency. DOJ argues Maryland has “flouted” § 1623 for roughly fifteen years by using high school attendance, graduation, and state taxpaying as proxies for residency to extend in‑state tuition and state aid to undocumented students living in Maryland.

This argument rests on two linked claims. First, that Maryland’s criteria amount to a residency rule in substance if not in name: they select people embedded in Maryland communities and tax systems and distinguish them from students who live elsewhere. Second, that § 1623 is an express preemption provision: when a state uses residence‑like criteria to confer tuition discounts or aid on undocumented students, it must also offer the identical benefit to any U.S. citizen, including those living in other states or abroad. DOJ has leaned on supportive appellate precedent, particularly the Fifth Circuit’s Young Conservatives of Texas Foundation v. Smatresk and subsequent decisions, which describe § 1623(a) as “expressly preempt[ing] state rules that grant illegal aliens benefits when U.S. citizens haven’t received the same.”

The Trump administration has not treated Maryland as an outlier. A 2025 executive order on “Treatment of Americans” directed the Attorney General to identify and stop enforcement of state laws “favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens,” specifically invoking § 1623 to target tuition‑equity statutes. The Maryland complaint is described as the 13th DOJ challenge to similar state policies, following cases in Texas, Nebraska, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and several other states. In DOJ’s framing, this is not a discretionary policy disagreement but a constitutional enforcement action: under the Supremacy Clause, federal law must override inconsistent state rules.

Maryland’s Defense: Residency, Equity, and Congressional Space for State Choice

Maryland’s elected officials have responded by emphasizing both the local character of the beneficiaries and their reading of federal law. Attorney General Anthony Brown has framed DOJ’s suit as an effort “to take away an opportunity for Maryland students,” stressing that the law applies to young people who attended Maryland high schools, built their lives in Maryland communities, and whose families have paid Maryland taxes. Governor Wes Moore’s public defense has highlighted “DREAMers” with meaningful ties to the state rather than abstract legal categories.

On the legal front, Maryland’s position draws on a body of scholarship and advocacy that views § 1623 as narrow and manageable rather than an outright bar. Analysts at organizations such as the National Immigration Law Center point out that federal law does not prohibit states from providing in‑state tuition to undocumented immigrants; instead, § 1623 restricts benefits “on the basis of residence” while § 1621(d) explicitly allows states to pass post‑1996 laws affirmatively granting certain public benefits to undocumented people. The key, in this view, is how a state structures eligibility: if a tuition rule applies equally to undocumented and citizen students who meet the same criteria—local schooling, taxpaying, community ties—then the state is not giving a “residence‑based” benefit only to undocumented immigrants.

Maryland’s statutory history supports this interpretation. Early fiscal and policy notes describe the Dream Act’s exemption from nonresident tuition as available “regardless of residency status,” while expressly excluding certain nonimmigrant visa holders. Later legislative tweaks adjusted tax‑filing windows and high school attendance requirements but preserved the basic structure: treat graduates of Maryland schools whose families pay Maryland taxes as quasi‑residents for tuition purposes, without distinguishing by immigration status. Advocates argue this is precisely the kind of “properly crafted state legislation” that courts and commentators have said can coexist with federal constraints.

The Broader Pattern: A National Fight Over Tuition Equity

The Maryland case takes place against a crowded backdrop. Since the mid‑2000s, more than 20 states have adopted some form of tuition equity for undocumented students, with widely varying conditions—years of in‑state schooling, proof of residency, DACA status, or tax records. For nearly two decades, the federal government largely left these arrangements alone, even as public debate over immigration and benefits intensified.

That quiet ended with the Trump administration’s pivot toward using § 1623 as a tool of national policy. A series of lawsuits and regulatory changes, paired with the 2025 executive order, have sought to shut down in‑state tuition and block institutional scholarships for undocumented students. In some states, such as Texas, litigation has already resulted in courts enforcing a more restrictive reading of § 1623, effectively ending certain tuition benefits. In Nebraska, the dispute was resolved through a consent decree specifying how the state’s policies would be brought into compliance. Other cases remain pending, creating a patchwork of outcomes.

This campaign has consequences far beyond the handful of students in any one state. Tuition equity policies have been linked to higher enrollment and completion rates among undocumented youth, who otherwise face out‑of‑state or international tuition charges that can be two to three times higher than resident rates. For states, these policies are part of a broader strategy to leverage the investment already made in K‑12 education by keeping local talent in the public higher‑education system. For DOJ, however, such policies are evidence of states “favoring aliens” and undermining the uniform application of federal immigration law.

Where the Legal Disagreement Is Genuine—and Why Maryland Matters

It is important to be clear about what is not contested in this Maryland dispute. No party denies that undocumented students are currently eligible, under state law, for in‑state tuition and certain state financial aid, provided they meet the Dream Act criteria. No one disputes that federal law, including §§ 1621 and 1623, imposes some constraints on public benefits for people without lawful presence. The disagreement is about how those constraints operate and how far they reach into traditional state terrain.

On one side is DOJ’s insistence that § 1623 is a bright‑line rule: if an undocumented student living in Maryland receives a tuition discount, every U.S. citizen—whether living in Maryland, Virginia, or overseas—must be eligible for an equivalent benefit. That reading treats high school graduation, taxpaying, and similar criteria as thinly veiled residency tests and sees any distinction between resident and nonresident citizens as impermissible when undocumented students are included on the resident side.

On the other is Maryland’s—and many other states’—contention that Congress did not strip states of the ability to recognize and support their own high school graduates, regardless of immigration status. Under this view, § 1623 simply bars a narrow scenario in which an undocumented student is offered a benefit solely because they are considered a resident, while a citizen with identical local ties is excluded. When a state’s criteria apply equally to citizens and non‑citizens embedded in the state, the benefit is not “on the basis of residence” in the sense § 1623 prohibits.

The outcome of the Maryland case will do more than settle a local fight. If federal courts endorse DOJ’s broad interpretation, many existing tuition‑equity laws will have to be dismantled or radically rewritten; states would face a choice between extending resident benefits to nonresident citizens or eliminating them for undocumented residents altogether. If, conversely, Maryland’s framework survives judicial scrutiny, it will validate a model many states have already adopted and give legislatures clearer guidance on how to design policies that withstand preemption claims.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a lawsuit Thursday against Maryland, challenging its state laws that provide in-state tuition and financial assistance to illegal immigrants.https://t.co/Bv5kO1OTSe

— 7News DC (@7NewsDC) July 17, 2026

Looking Ahead: Policy, Politics, and Practical Consequences

For Maryland families, the stakes are immediate. Fall 2024 enrollment data cited in coverage showed hundreds of undocumented students—roughly 500 at community colleges and 200 at public four‑year institutions—receiving in‑state tuition under the Dream Act framework. For those students, the lawsuit is not an abstract legal exercise; it threatens to turn an affordable degree into an impossibility.

For the broader public, including the older, taxpaying residents who ultimately underwrite both the K‑12 pipeline and the higher‑education system, the question is whether a state can continue to treat long‑time, tax‑paying, locally educated undocumented students as part of its “own” for tuition and aid purposes. That question is entangled with national politics—the case targets a Democratic‑led state and is part of a suite of actions against similar jurisdictions—but it is also squarely about institutional design: how federal immigration rules interact with state choices about education, human capital, and fairness.

Whatever one’s view of immigration policy, the legal architecture being tested in Maryland will endure beyond any single administration. It will define not only what undocumented students can expect when they graduate from a Maryland high school, but also how much room any state has to craft higher‑education benefits in a federated system where Congress has staked claims but left crucial gaps. That is why this lawsuit, and the statutory language at its core, deserves close attention from anyone who cares about the future of public colleges and the young people they serve.