Federal Judge Strikes Down Illinois Laws Granting In-State Tuition and Aid to Illegal Immigrants

A federal judge has ruled that Illinois statutes providing in-state tuition rates, state financial aid, and scholarships to aliens not lawfully present in the United States violate federal immigration law, delivering a significant setback to policies long championed by Democratic Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

U.S. District Judge David W. Dugan of the Southern District of Illinois held that the challenged provisions of the Retention of Illinois Students and Equity Act (RISE Act), the Acevedo Act, the Illinois DREAM Act scholarship program, and related measures are preempted by 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a). That federal statute prohibits any state from granting postsecondary education benefits on the basis of state residence to an alien who is not lawfully present unless the same benefits are made available to every U.S. citizen or national regardless of residence. The court found that Illinois’ framework treats unlawfully present individuals more favorably than out-of-state American citizens, running afoul of both the statute and the Supremacy Clause of the Constitution.

“Put simply, U.S. citizens or nationals must be treated no worse than illegal aliens,” Judge Dugan wrote in the opinion. The ruling grants the federal government’s motion for summary judgment in substantial part, permanently enjoining Illinois officials, including the governor, attorney general, state education agencies, and governing boards of public universities and community colleges, from enforcing the benefits as applied to unlawfully present aliens. The injunction is stayed for 14 days to permit an appeal.

The lawsuit was filed by the Trump Justice Department in September 2025 as part of a broader series of challenges to similar state policies across the country. U.S. Attorney Steven D. Weinhoeft stated that Illinois had sought “to incentivize illegal immigration on the taxpayer’s dime by treating illegal aliens better than U.S. citizens living in other states.” He described the decision as enforcing the clear language of the statute enacted by Congress.

Under the invalidated laws, certain students who attended an Illinois high school for at least three years, graduated or obtained a GED in the state, and signed an affidavit expressing intent to seek permanent residency could qualify for in-state tuition and various forms of state assistance even if they lacked lawful immigration status. Successive expansions under Pritzker, including measures signed in 2019, 2024, and 2025, broadened eligibility for scholarships, grants, stipends, and tuition waivers. The Illinois DREAM Act, originally enacted in 2011, created a privately funded scholarship component that was also encompassed by the ruling.

Illinois had argued that the policies fell within traditional state authority over education and did not conflict with federal law. The court rejected the state’s anti-commandeering and Tenth Amendment claims, emphasizing that the federal statute imposes a prohibition rather than an affirmative command to administer a federal program. As a result, the state must either extend the same residence-based benefits to all U.S. citizens irrespective of their home state or cease providing them to those without lawful status.

The decision does not address every related measure. A separate bill scheduled to take effect in the 2027–2028 academic year was left untouched. Illinois officials are expected to appeal, and the temporary stay will keep the current framework in place during the initial appellate window. The ruling forms part of a wider pattern of federal court actions under the current administration that have invalidated or prompted the rescission of similar in-state tuition policies in other states on the same statutory grounds.

For Illinois taxpayers and out-of-state American students, the decision restores a measure of parity required by federal law. For the thousands of students previously eligible under the state’s expansive criteria, the practical consequences will depend on the outcome of any appeal and on whether the legislature chooses to redesign the programs in a manner that complies with the federal restriction. The case underscores the ongoing tension between state efforts to expand educational access for undocumented residents and the limits Congress has placed on preferential treatment based on immigration status.