Arizona AG: Noncitizen tuition isn't Trump's business

The outcome of a federal lawsuit could affect who pays in state tuition at the University of Arizona and what financial aid some students can receive. Arizona is defending a voter approved policy that allows certain graduates of Arizona high schools to receive reduced tuition regardless of where they live or whether they have lawful immigration status. The state is asking a federal judge to dismiss the Trump administration’s challenge, arguing that Washington has no legal standing to interfere with an Arizona education policy.

The case is before U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow. Assistant Attorney General Hayleigh Crawford wrote in a recent filing that the federal government has not identified a specific injury it suffered from Arizona’s tuition rules. The Justice Department has instead pointed to an estimated $10.5 million in reduced tuition payments to Arizona universities during the last school year. Crawford said that figure is inaccurate, but did not provide an alternative amount, and argued that any financial effect would be felt by Arizona and its public institutions, not the federal government.

The administration’s lawsuit claims Arizona’s policy conflicts with a 1998 federal law and with an executive order President Donald Trump issued in 2025. The federal law restricts states from providing postsecondary benefits based on state residency to people who are not lawfully present in the country, unless comparable benefits are also available to U.S. citizens from every state. Trump’s order directed the Justice Department to challenge state practices that provide benefits to noncitizens that are unavailable to American citizens from outside the state, specifically mentioning in state college tuition.

Arizona’s position is that Proposition 308, approved by voters in 2022, is not an immigration policy. The measure passed by 51.2% to 48.8% and changed the state’s rules for tuition and some scholarships. It allows eligible students to pay the same tuition as Arizona residents even when they do not have lawful immigration status. At the University of Arizona, the difference is substantial. Annual undergraduate tuition is listed as $13,906 for in state students, compared with $43,068 for students classified as nonresidents.

Crawford argues that the policy is based on a student’s Arizona educational experience, not immigration status or legal residence. To qualify, a student must attend a public or private high school, or be homeschooled, while physically present in Arizona for at least two years, and must graduate while physically present in the state. Proposition 308 expressly says that people without lawful immigration status can qualify. The state says those requirements do not rely on the federal law’s concept of a person’s principal or actual home.

That distinction could matter for students with unusual living arrangements. Under the state’s interpretation, a student who lives outside Arizona but crosses the border each day to attend an Arizona high school could qualify after graduating. A student whose parents live elsewhere could also qualify after completing high school at an Arizona boarding school. Someone who met the requirements and later moved out of state could retain eligibility, even after living elsewhere for years. On the other hand, a family that moves to Arizona during a student’s final year of high school would not meet the two year attendance requirement. An Arizona student who graduates from a school outside the state would also be excluded.

The dispute has roots in the state’s earlier treatment of recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. Created by the Obama administration in 2012, DACA allowed certain people brought to the United States as children before 2007 to remain and work if they met specified conditions. Arizona’s community college system and later the Arizona Board of Regents allowed DACA recipients to pay in state tuition. In 2018, however, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled that Proposition 300, a 2006 measure, barred subsidized tuition and other public benefits for people who were not legally in the country. Proposition 308 was adopted in part to change that result for tuition and scholarships.

The state is also challenging the administration’s broader reasoning. Crawford acknowledged that Congress has extensive authority over immigration and the legal status of people in the United States, but said education remains primarily a state responsibility. She rejected the argument that reduced tuition would turn students into public charges, saying Arizona voters adopted an education policy intended to promote financial independence through college and job training. She also said there is no conflict between federal immigration classifications and Arizona’s method of deciding who pays the in state rate.

Arizona’s filing further argues that decisions supporting the Trump administration in Illinois, Texas and Nebraska do not settle this case because the laws in those states use different language. The federal government’s lawsuit does not claim a direct injury to Washington, the state says, and the tuition issue concerns Arizona’s universities and voters. Judge Snow has not announced when he will rule on the arguments. Until then, the case leaves the tuition framework approved by Arizona voters in place, with potential consequences for students at the University of Arizona and other public campuses across the state.