Arizona argues $10.5 million claim is irrelevant in tuition fight

Federal courts in the Ninth Circuit have recently seen a wave of challenges to state policies that provide benefits to noncitizens. The latest dispute involves Arizona’s in-state tuition rates for undocumented students. State attorneys asked a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit filed by the Trump administration this year. The government claims the state policy violates federal law and a presidential executive order.

The Department of Justice estimates the financial impact of the policy at $10.5 million for the last school year. This figure represents the alleged damages suffered by Arizona universities due to reduced tuition payments. Assistant Attorney General Hayleigh Crawford told U.S. District Court Judge Murray Snow that the government lacks standing to bring this case. She argued that only individuals who can prove a concrete and particularized injury may sue in federal court. The federal government cannot point to an injury that is actual or imminent.

Crawford noted that any economic harm from lower tuition accrues to Arizona and its institutions, not the United States. She stated that the specific amount of the reduced tuition is irrelevant to the standing question. The state’s position is that the federal government is not the proper party to challenge a state education policy when the financial burden stays within the state.

The legal background of this issue dates back to 2012, when the Obama administration created the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. Known as DACA, it allowed individuals who arrived in the country illegally as children before 2007 to remain and work. In response, the Maricopa Community College system and the Arizona Board of Regents agreed to let DACA recipients pay in-state tuition. However, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in 2018 that Proposition 300, a 2006 ballot measure, barred such benefits. Proposition 300 denied public benefits, including subsidized tuition, to those not legally in the country.

Voters changed the landscape in 2022. They approved Proposition 308 by a margin of 51.2% to 48.8%. This measure clarified that the 2006 ban no longer applies to tuition and scholarships. Under the new law, certain students who graduated from an Arizona high school and meet other conditions can pay the same rate as state residents. This applies regardless of their immigration status. U.S. citizens from other states may still be required to pay the higher non-resident tuition.

The price difference is substantial. At the University of Arizona, in-state undergraduate tuition is $13,906 per year. The out-of-state cost is $43,068 annually. Proposition 308 requires students to have attended a public or private school, or been homeschooled, while physically present in Arizona for at least two years. They must also have graduated while physically present in the state. Crawford cited examples to illustrate how this works. A student who crosses into Arizona daily from another state could qualify for in-state tuition if they attend and graduate from an Arizona high school.

Crawford also pointed out that a student from another state who graduates from an Arizona boarding school can qualify for the lower rate. This is true even if that person is technically a resident of their parents’ state. Conversely, a student whose family moves to Arizona in the final year of high school does not qualify. An Arizonan who attends and graduates from an out-of-state private or boarding school also does not qualify. The state argued that rulings in Illinois, Texas, and Nebraska do not apply because the wording of the laws in those states is different.

President Trump issued an executive order last year directing the Department of Justice to act against states that give benefits to aliens that all American citizens do not receive. The order specifically mentions state laws that provide in-state higher education tuition to aliens but not to out-of-state American citizens. A 1998 federal law also restricts postsecondary benefits for those not lawfully present in the United States unless the same benefits are available to citizens of any other state. Judge Snow has not indicated when he will rule on the state’s motion to dismiss.