The state of Minnesota and Democratic Governor Tim Walz are the targets of a high-profile lawsuit from the U.S. Department of Justice regarding a contentious program that provides in-state tuition and state financial aid to undocumented immigrants pursuing higher education.
This week’s lawsuit is the most recent step in a larger federal crackdown on state-level initiatives that are thought to give preference to illegal immigrants over citizens of the United States. Following a similar DOJ victory in Texas and continuing legal action in Kentucky, the Trump administration is making a concerted effort to limit state-funded benefits for non-citizens and reassert federal immigration policy.
The Minnesota Dream Act v. DOJ lawsuit
The Minnesota Dream Act, a law passed in 2013 that grants undocumented immigrants in the state access to in-state college tuition and state financial aid—benefits normally only available to legal residents—is at the center of the legal dispute.
In her statement, Attorney General Pam Bondi wasn’t holding back:
According to Bondi, “no state can be permitted to treat Americans as second-class citizens in their own nation by providing financial benefits to illegal aliens.”
“We look forward to taking this fight to Minnesota in order to protect the rights of American citizens first, as the Department of Justice just won on this exact issue in Texas.”
According to the DOJ, the program discriminates against U.S. citizens who reside outside of their state and requires them to pay much higher tuition, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. State Attorney General Keith Ellison and the Minnesota Office of Higher Education are specifically named as co-defendants in their lawsuit.
The DOJ statement states, “The extent of this discrimination against U.S. citizens is significant.” “Tuition for resident students is substantially less expensive than for non-resident U.S. citizens.”
Political Repercussions and Walz’s Reaction
The Dream Act and other similar programs have been defended by Governor Tim Walz, who attracted national attention as the Democratic nominee for vice president in the 2024 election. Walz acknowledged political challenges after the lawsuit:
In reference to his and his running mate’s larger immigration and equity platform, he reportedly stated, “The country was not ready for the message we were promoting.”
Walz has not yet responded to the DOJ’s filing with a formal legal response. The legal defense is anticipated to be led by State Attorney General Keith Ellison, a major supporter of the Minnesota Dream Act.
A More Comprehensive Legal Initiative by the Trump Administration
The Trump administration is attempting to end what it considers to be “preferential treatment” for illegal immigrants, and this lawsuit is only one part of that effort.
President Trump issued an executive order in April ordering all federal agencies to examine and eliminate “laws, regulations, policies, and practices” that give non-citizens an advantage over citizens of the United States.
By reorienting attention from border enforcement to internal systems, especially in public services, healthcare, and education, the order signaled a sea change in domestic immigration policy.
Limits on Nationwide Injunctions by the Supreme Court: Support for Trump’s Agenda
The Trump administration also achieved a significant legal win on Friday when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6–3 to restrict the use of nationwide injunctions, which are court orders that have been frequently used in recent years to stop the implementation of presidential policies in all 50 states.
All six of the GOP-appointed justices voted in favor of the decision, which means that lower courts can no longer block executive actions in broad strokes unless they only affect the parties directly involved.
Attorney General Bondi praised the decision as revolutionary:
District courts were told by the Supreme Court today to halt the ceaseless stream of nationwide injunctions against President Trump. The president’s policies and the power to carry them out will be fiercely defended by this Department of Justice.
What’s at Risk: Future Court Cases and Birthright Citizenship
Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship, which had previously been halted by numerous nationwide injunctions, is one of the most important policies that are now poised to advance as a result of the ruling.
By limiting automatic citizenship to children born in the United States whose parents are either citizens or lawful permanent residents, the order aims to reinterpret the 14th Amendment.
According to analysts, if this policy is implemented, up to 255,000 children born annually to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders may not be granted automatic citizenship.
After three federal courts blocked the policy’s implementation, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the matter during its upcoming session, which starts in October.
The Takeaway: A Change in America’s Definition of Citizenship and Benefits
There is more to the lawsuit against Minnesota than just tuition breaks or financial aid. It is a component of a larger legal and political movement to reinterpret who is eligible for public benefits and under what circumstances.
While supporters say the lawsuit is about restoring fairness to U.S. citizens who are being overlooked, critics contend it uses federal power as a weapon to undermine state programs that are compassionate and community-focused.
It revolves around a central query that America will face in 2025:
Who decides who should have all the rights and advantages of living in the United States?
