On June 25, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against Minnesota, challenging our state's longstanding commitment to providing educational opportunities for students who have grown up here and are residents of Minnesota. Unlike Texas, which quickly surrendered to federal pressure and abandoned its own students, the Mn Dream Act and North Star Promise will be protected. This comes on the heels of commemorating 13 years of DACA on June 15, 2025.

What the DOJ Claims

The federal lawsuit targets two key Minnesota laws:

• Minnesota Statute § 135A.043 (the Prosperity Act also known as the Minnesota Dream Act): Allows students who attended Minnesota high schools for three years and graduated here to qualify for in-state tuition

• Minnesota Statute § 136A.1465 (North Star Promise): Provides free tuition to eligible students whose families earn less than $80,000 annually

The DOJ argues these laws violate federal immigration law by providing educational benefits to undocumented students that aren't available to all U.S. citizens nationwide. They wrongly claim this violates the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution and federal statute 8 U.S.C. § 1623.

But the DOJ is wrong—both legally and morally.

Why Minnesota Will Prevail: The Constitutional Foundation

Education is a State Power, Not Federal

The Constitution is clear: education is fundamentally a state responsibility. The Constitution mentions nothing about education, and the Tenth Amendment reserves all powers not granted to the federal government to the states. For over 200 years, states have controlled their own educational policies, including residency requirements for tuition purposes.

The federal government cannot simply commandeer state educational systems because it disagrees with our policy choices. This principle—known as the anti-commandeering doctrine—has been firmly established by the Supreme Court since 1992.

Minnesota's Laws Are Based on Residency, Not Immigration Status

Here's what the DOJ gets fundamentally wrong: Minnesota's laws aren't about immigration—they're about residency.

Our Prosperity Act requires students to:

• Attend a Minnesota high school for at least three years

• Graduate from a Minnesota high school or earn a GED here

• Meet additional state-specific criteria

Any U.S. citizen who meets these same criteria qualifies for in-state tuition. The requirements apply regardless of immigration status. A U.S. citizen from Ohio who attended high school there cannot get Minnesota in-state tuition, while a U.S. citizen who attended high school here for three years can—exactly as it should be. In fact, the requirement for an undocumented student is higher than US citizens, who only must demonstrate Minnesota residency for a calendar year, not three. Minnesota also has reciprocity agreements with few states.

Equal Protection and Constitutional Principles

The students covered by Minnesota's laws have deep ties to our communities. They've attended our schools, formed friendships, participated in activities, and in many cases know no other home. Many have registered for Selective Service, demonstrating their civic commitment. They all have sworn to apply for legal status if that ever becomes an option for them.

Denying educational benefits to these long-term Minnesota residents based solely on immigration status—especially when they've met all the same residency requirements as any other student—raises serious constitutional questions about equal protection and due process.

Federal Courts Should Avoid Constitutional Conflicts

Legal doctrine requires courts to interpret federal statutes narrowly when a broad reading would create serious constitutional conflicts. The DOJ's interpretation of federal immigration law would force states to abandon their traditional authority over education—creating exactly the kind of constitutional crisis courts should avoid.

Congress likely never intended to completely override state educational policy when it passed immigration laws. Federal statutes should be read to preserve both legitimate federal immigration authority and traditional state control over education.

Why Minnesota Won't Be Like Texas

In June 2025, when the DOJ filed a nearly identical lawsuit against Texas, something troubling happened: Texas immediately surrendered. Within hours of the lawsuit being filed, Texas agreed to eliminate its 24-year-old Dream Act without any fight. Legal experts called it a "collusive lawsuit"—essentially theater designed to achieve a predetermined outcome while bypassing the democratic process.

Minnesota cannot abandon our students or our democratic values.

When Minnesota passed the Dream Act in 2013 and the North Star Promise in 2023, we did so through the democratic process. Our elected representatives, accountable to Minnesota voters, made deliberate policy choices about how to support students who are integral to our communities.

Federal courts should not override state democratic processes without compelling justification—and the DOJ has provided none.

The Federal Government Lacks Standing

The DOJ has failed to demonstrate that the Prosperity Act or the North Star are preempted either by explicit language in a statute or regulation or impliedly preempted by federal law occupying an entire field of law or that state laws create such a conflict for the federal law to not be complied with. Our laws don't interfere with immigration enforcement, don't prevent federal agencies from carrying out their duties, and don't conflict with any legitimate federal program.

Educational policy decisions are within state authority and don't harm federal interests. The federal government simply cannot point to any actual preemption in federal law or regulation that justifies overriding Minnesota's sovereignty over its own educational system.

What's Really at Stake: A Decade-Long Fight for Educational Justice

This lawsuit isn't just about tuition policies—it's about fundamental questions of federalism, democracy, and who gets to make decisions about education in America. But it's also about something more personal and profound: the decade-long struggle by undocumented students to win the right to pursue their educational dreams.

The students affected by these laws are Minnesotans. They've grown up here, been educated in our schools, and built their lives in our communities. Many know no other home. They've met every requirement we ask of any student seeking in-state tuition. But more than that—we, a coalition of students, educators, businesses, unions, and others, fought for over a decade to achieve this victory.

For more than ten years, undocumented students in Minnesota organized, advocated, and persevered through setbacks and disappointments. We shared their stories with legislators, educated our communities, and built coalitions that crossed party lines and brought together diverse voices. We testified at hearings, attended countless meetings, and never gave up on our belief that education should be accessible to all students who call Minnesota home.

The 2013 Minnesota Dream Act didn't happen overnight—they represent the culmination of years of advocacy, relationship-building, and democratic engagement by students who refused to accept that their zip code or documentation status should determine their educational opportunities. The 2023 North Star Promise was authored by Senator Omar Fateh.

Now that victory is under attack. The federal government wants to undo in court what students spent over a decade building through the democratic process. This assault on state rights threatens not just current students, but the very principle that states can choose to educate all of their residents—regardless of immigration status.

But more broadly, this case is about whether states can maintain their traditional authority over education, or whether the federal government can override any state policy it dislikes by claiming immigration authority. It's about whether more than a decade of advocacy, organizing, and democratic victories can be swept away by federal litigation.

The fight for educational access continues. Just as undocumented students spent over a decade fighting for the right to pursue higher education, we must now fight to protect state rights to educate all students who have made our communities their home. This isn't just about tuition—it's about defending the principle that states know best how to serve their own residents and that educational opportunity should not be limited by federal overreach.

Minnesota Must Stand Firm

Unlike Texas, which abandoned its students without a fight, Minnesota must vigorously defend our democratically-enacted laws. We have strong constitutional arguments, compelling legal precedent, and most importantly, we have the moral conviction that comes from standing up for students who have made Minnesota their home.

The Constitution protects state authority over education. Federal law, properly interpreted, doesn't require states to abandon their residency-based educational policies. And democratic principles demand that federal courts respect the choices made by state voters and their elected representatives.

Minnesota cannot capitulate. We cannot abandon our students. And we cannot surrender our constitutional principles to federal overreach.

Our students deserve better than what Texas gave theirs. Our students deserve a state that will fight for them, defend the democratic process, and uphold the constitutional balance between state and federal authority.

Minnesota must prevail because the Constitution, the law, and justice are on our side.

The Biden-Harris Administration just announced June 17, 2024 exciting news that will provide new protections to certain spouses of US Citizens and streamline access to work visas for DACA-holders.

The announcement comes in the heels of DACA marking 12 years on June 15, 2024 since President Obama (and Biden as Vice-President) announced it in 2012. The new process announced by the Biden-Harris Administration will allow:

1. Keeping Families Together:

   • Certain Noncitizen spouses and children will be eligible to apply for lawful permanent residence (green card) -- status that they are already eligible for -- without leaving the US (often called Parole in Place*).

   • In order to be eligible, noncitizens must – as of June 17, 2024 – have resided in the United States for 10 or more years and be legally married to a U.S. citizen, while satisfying all applicable legal requirements. On average, those who are eligible for this process have resided in the U.S. for 23 years.

   • Those who are approved after DHS’s case-by-case assessment of their application will be afforded a three-year period to apply for permanent residency. They will be allowed to remain with their families in the United States and be eligible for work authorization for up to three years. This will apply to all married couples who are eligible.  

   • This action will protect approximately half a million spouses of U.S. citizens, and approximately 50,000 noncitizen children under the age of 21 whose parent is married to a U.S. citizen.

2. Easing the Visa Process for U.S. College Graduates, Including Dreamers:

• Allow individuals, including DACA recipients and other Dreamers, who have earned a degree at an accredited U.S. institution of higher education in the United States, and who have received an offer of employment from a U.S. employer in a field related to their degree, to more quickly receive work visas.

You can read the announcement from the White House here. 

You can read the Department of Homeland Security here.

REMEMBER: the process to apply has not been announced. Stay alert. Do not fall for scams.

Legal Immigration Resources:

Here is a list of legal resources from the Minnesota Latino Affairs Council. And here is a list by the Minnesota State Law Library. The Presidents' Alliance of Higher Education and Immigration will be hosting on July 10, 2024 at 11AM (PT) an online event to explain more about the announcement of today--register here.