Minnesota Defeats DOJ Suit Over Tuition Costs for Out of Staters

Federal immigration law doesn’t override Minnesota statutes that allow “unlawful” noncitizens to receive lower in-state college tuition rates that U.S. citizens, a federal judge ruled.

Justice Department contentions that federal law preempts the Minnesota’s treatment of US citizens living outside the state fails, Judge Katherine Menendez said, because the state statute laying out how to qualify for “Resident Tuition” doesn’t determine eligibility for such funding “on the basis of residence” within a particular state.

Can a student “be eligible for Resident Tuition if their principal, actual dwelling place is outside of Minnesota? The answer is yes,” the US District Court for the District of Minnesota judge said. Menendez granted the state’s motion to permanently dismiss the federal lawsuit against the state and its office of higher education in a March 27 order.

The DOJ suit also named as defendants Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and state Attorney General Keith Ellison, both of whom are Democrats. Walz, the 2024 Democratic vice presidential nominee, has been a persistent target of Trump administration criticism over the state’s $300 million federal aid fraud scandal, and the site of an immigration crackdown that led to the shooting death of two US citizens by federal agents.

The Justice Department asserts that portions of three Minnesota laws violate, and are preempted by. the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, and are preempted. The challenged statutes allow for “squarely prohibited” treatment that discriminates against U.S. citizens who reside outside the state’s borders, violate the Supremacy Clause, the June 2025 complaint asserts.

Citing to California

Minnesota’s resident tuition statute includes two pertinent criteria, that the student attended a Minnesota high school for three or more years, and that the student graduated from a state high school (or achieved the equivalent), Menendez said.

“While these criteria certainly require some connection to Minnesota, they do not require Minnesota residency; the Resident Tuition Statute simply does not make eligibility for postsecondary education benefits contingent upon the location of a person’s ‘principal, actual dwelling place in fact,’” the judge said.

There are multiple ways a student could qualify for resident tuition without residing in Minnesota, she said, like attending a Minnesota high school while living in a neighboring state.

Cases such as Martinez v. Regents of the University of California is “particularly compelling” and “on all fours” with the Minnesota case, Menendez said. In that 2010 case, the California Supreme Court considered the preemptive effect of the IIRIRA on “nearly identical state statutory language” that required similar conditions be met for resident tuition eligibility.

The United States’ preemption claim also fails because a second contested provision—which prohibits a person who isn’t here legally from receiving a residency-based postsecondary benefit “unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit—doesn’t apply to the Minnesota statutes. The US hasn’t established the required traceability or redressability to establish Article III standing against Walz or Ellison because they don’t have have enforcement authority over the Minnesota statutes, she said.

The Justice Department represents the U.S. The Minnesota Attorney General’s Office represents the state.

The case is United States v. Walz, D. Minn., No. 0:25-cv-02668, order 3/27/26.