The state of Minnesota is now at the center of a legal firestorm after the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit challenging the state’s financial aid policies for undocumented immigrants. At the heart of the dispute is the Minnesota Dream Act, a 2013 law that allows undocumented students to receive in-state tuition and access to state-funded college financial aid—benefits traditionally reserved for legal residents.
The DOJ’s lawsuit marks a significant escalation in a broader federal push to roll back state programs that the Trump administration views as overly favorable to non-citizens. This legal battle follows recent victories in Texas and ongoing litigation in Kentucky as part of the administration’s strategy to align state programs more closely with federal immigration policy. According to the DOJ, these types of benefits unfairly disadvantage U.S. citizens, particularly those who live out of state and must pay higher tuition.
In a strong statement, Attorney General Pam Bondi emphasized that the federal government will not allow Americans to be treated as “second-class citizens.” She pointed to the Texas ruling as a precedent and declared the DOJ is prepared to fight this issue in Minnesota with equal vigor.
The lawsuit specifically targets Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and the state’s Office of Higher Education, asserting that the Dream Act violates the Equal Protection Clause by offering cheaper in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants while U.S. citizens from other states are required to pay significantly more. The DOJ described this disparity as “significant,” arguing that it undermines fairness and legal standards.
Governor Tim Walz, who rose to national prominence as the Democratic vice-presidential candidate in 2024, has been a vocal supporter of the Minnesota Dream Act. Though he has yet to issue a formal legal response to the DOJ’s complaint, Walz has hinted at the political tensions surrounding the issue, stating that “the country was not ready” for the more inclusive immigration policies he and his running mate proposed during the campaign.
The legal defense of the Dream Act will likely be led by Keith Ellison, a longtime advocate for immigrant rights and progressive social policies. For supporters of the act, this lawsuit is not just about tuition—it’s about compassion, inclusion, and the right of all residents, regardless of immigration status, to pursue higher education and a better life.
But for the Trump administration, this case is a cornerstone in its broader agenda to reassert federal authority over immigration and public benefits. In April, President Trump signed an executive order directing all federal agencies to review and eliminate laws or policies that extend preferential treatment to non-citizens. The administration is shifting focus from border security to tightening eligibility rules across internal systems, including healthcare, education, and housing.
The Supreme Court has also bolstered this agenda. In a recent 6–3 ruling, the Court limited the use of nationwide injunctions, which had been a key legal tool for halting the implementation of Trump-era policies. All six Republican-appointed justices sided with the majority, essentially narrowing the ability of lower courts to block federal policies outside the scope of specific plaintiffs.
Attorney General Bondi hailed the ruling as a major victory, saying it would put an end to what she called an “abuse of judicial power” that repeatedly hindered the president’s ability to enact his agenda. One of the most immediate effects of the decision could be the revival of Trump’s executive order seeking to restrict birthright citizenship.
That controversial policy, which aims to deny automatic citizenship to children born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders, was previously blocked by several federal courts. With nationwide injunctions now limited, the issue is set to be argued before the Supreme Court in the upcoming term. If upheld, the rule could potentially deny citizenship to over 250,000 children born annually under current interpretations of the 14th Amendment.
This legal battle is about more than just tuition rates or administrative policy. It strikes at the heart of an ongoing national debate over who is entitled to the rights and privileges of American life. Supporters of the lawsuit say it’s about restoring fairness to American citizens who are being asked to subsidize benefits for people who entered the country unlawfully. Critics argue it’s a politically driven move to dismantle compassionate programs that support young people striving to build a better future.
As the lawsuit moves forward, the country is once again forced to grapple with a difficult question—one that may define the social and political landscape of 2025: Who truly qualifies for the benefits, rights, and promises of the American dream?