As we navigate the complex intersection of education policy and immigration law, I’m thrilled to sit down with Camille Faivre, a renowned education expert with a deep focus on education management. In the wake of the global pandemic, Camille has been at the forefront of helping institutions adapt through innovative open and e-learning programs. Today, we’re diving into a pressing issue: the U.S. Department of Justice’s lawsuit against Illinois over in-state tuition for undocumented students. Our conversation will explore the legal challenges, the broader implications for educational access, state policies across the nation, and the financial stakes involved in this debate.
Can you walk us through the core issue behind the DOJ’s lawsuit against Illinois regarding in-state tuition for undocumented students?
Certainly, Javier. The Department of Justice is challenging Illinois state laws that allow certain undocumented students to pay in-state tuition rates at public colleges and access state-administered scholarships. Specifically, they’re targeting a policy that’s been in place since 2003. The DOJ argues that this violates federal law by offering benefits to undocumented individuals that aren’t equally available to all U.S. citizens, essentially creating a disparity in how educational opportunities are distributed.
What are the specific criteria undocumented students in Illinois must meet to qualify for these in-state tuition rates?
To be eligible, these students need to have attended a high school in Illinois for at least three years and must have graduated or earned a GED within the state. Additionally, they’re required to sign an affidavit committing to apply for permanent U.S. residency as soon as they’re able. It’s a structured set of requirements meant to ensure a level of integration into the state’s community before accessing this benefit.
How does the DOJ claim this policy creates an unfair disadvantage for U.S. citizens?
The DOJ’s position, as articulated by officials like U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi, is that providing in-state tuition to undocumented students offers a financial advantage not universally extended to U.S. citizens. For instance, a citizen from another state would pay out-of-state rates, which are significantly higher, while an undocumented student meeting Illinois’ criteria pays the lower in-state rate. They see this as an inequity that prioritizes some non-citizens over citizens in access to affordable education.
What has been the stance of Illinois Governor JB Pritzker in response to this legal challenge?
Governor Pritzker has been a staunch defender of the policy. His office has called the lawsuit an attempt to strip resources from Illinois residents and emphasized that the state’s approach is consistent with federal law. They argue that providing inclusive educational pathways for all students, including immigrants and first-generation individuals, strengthens the state’s community and economy, framing it as a matter of fairness and opportunity rather than a legal violation.
How does this issue play out on a national scale in terms of state policies for undocumented students?
This isn’t just an Illinois issue. As of recent data, at least 25 states, along with Washington, D.C., have policies allowing undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at some or all public colleges. However, the DOJ has been active, filing lawsuits against multiple states since June, including Texas and Oklahoma. The responses vary—some states have fought back, while others have adjusted or repealed their policies under pressure, showing how divisive and complex this topic is across the country.
Could you share some background on how Illinois developed its policy for in-state tuition for undocumented students?
Illinois has been a pioneer in this area, implementing its policy back in 2003, long before many other states. It was a deliberate move to support educational access for immigrant communities. In 2011, they took it a step further by establishing the Illinois DREAM Fund Commission, which raises private donations to provide scholarships specifically for these students. It’s a comprehensive effort to not just lower costs but also fund education through additional means.
What can we learn from how other states have handled similar challenges from the DOJ or federal pressure?
Looking at states like Texas and Oklahoma, we see a pattern of capitulation in some cases. In Texas, the state attorney general worked with the DOJ to have the policy struck down, and a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional. Oklahoma followed a similar path, with a judge approving the end of their policy. On the other hand, Florida proactively repealed its policy through legislation this year without direct federal intervention. These cases highlight a spectrum of responses, from cooperation to independent action, reflecting differing state priorities and political climates.
Can you break down the financial impact of in-state versus out-of-state tuition in Illinois for students and families?
The difference is stark and can be a game-changer for affordability. For example, at Illinois State University, full-time in-state students paid about $12,066 for a year of tuition in fall 2025, while out-of-state students paid double that at $24,132. At Chicago State, it’s $352 per credit hour for in-state versus $697 for out-of-state. That gap—often thousands of dollars—can determine whether a student can afford to pursue higher education or not, which is why this policy debate carries such weight.
Critics have labeled Illinois a ‘sanctuary state’ in this context. What do they mean by that, and how does it tie into this lawsuit?
The term ‘sanctuary state’ is often used by critics like U.S. Attorney Steven Weinhoeft to describe jurisdictions that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. In Illinois’ case, they argue that policies like in-state tuition for undocumented students, combined with other protective measures, incentivize illegal immigration and disadvantage citizens. It’s a charged label meant to suggest that the state prioritizes non-citizens over its own residents, fueling the DOJ’s push to challenge these laws.
What is your forecast for the future of educational access policies for undocumented students in the U.S., given these ongoing legal battles?
I think we’re at a critical juncture. With the DOJ’s aggressive stance and lawsuits in multiple states, we could see a patchwork of policies emerge—some states doubling down on inclusive access and others retracting under legal or political pressure. The outcome of these cases, especially in a state like Illinois with strong Democratic support, could set precedents for how federal and state powers balance on immigration-related education policies. Beyond that, I expect broader debates about equity in education to intensify, as economic and social pressures continue to shape who gets access to affordable higher learning. It’s a space to watch closely over the next few years.
