Por Renan Filho · 2026-11-06**Lead**
The Trump administration escalated its crackdown on sanctuary policies in higher education on Wednesday, filing a federal lawsuit against Pennsylvania State University over its practice of offering in-state tuition rates to undocumented migrants. The Department of Justice (DOJ) argues that the policy, which allows students without legal status to pay the same reduced tuition as Pennsylvania residents, directly conflicts with the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996, which generally bars states from providing postsecondary education benefits based on residency to undocumented individuals unless they offer the same benefit to all U.S. citizens regardless of state residency.
**Context**
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, marks the first time the Trump administration has directly challenged a public university’s tuition policy for undocumented students. Penn State, a land-grant institution with over 90,000 students across its campuses, has since 2019 allowed undocumented students who attended Pennsylvania high schools for at least three years and graduated to qualify for in-state tuition, provided they sign an affidavit stating they will apply for legal status as soon as they are eligible. The policy mirrors laws in more than 20 states, including California, New York, and Texas, which have enacted similar measures through state legislation or university board decisions.
Federal law under IIRIRA Section 505 prohibits states from offering in-state tuition to undocumented students based on state residency unless they also offer the same rate to all U.S. citizens regardless of where they live. However, many states have circumvented this by tying eligibility to attendance at a local high school rather than residency per se. The Trump administration has long argued that such policies are unlawful and incentivize illegal immigration. In 2020, the DOJ issued a memo warning that it would pursue legal action against institutions that continued the practice, but the COVID-19 pandemic delayed enforcement.
Penn State’s policy was adopted by the Board of Trustees after a student-led campaign and a review by the university’s legal counsel, which concluded that the policy complied with federal law because it did not base the benefit on residency but on high school attendance. The university has maintained that the policy is both legal and consistent with its mission to provide access to education for all students who have grown up in Pennsylvania communities.
**Analise**
The lawsuit represents a significant escalation in the Trump administration’s broader immigration enforcement agenda, which has targeted sanctuary cities, workplace raids, and now educational institutions. Legal experts note that the outcome could have sweeping implications for the estimated 65,000 undocumented high school graduates who enroll in U.S. colleges each year, many of whom rely on in-state tuition to afford higher education. If the DOJ prevails, universities in states with similar policies could be forced to revoke in-state rates for undocumented students, potentially pricing them out of college altogether.
Beyond the immediate financial impact, the case tests the limits of state and institutional autonomy in immigration matters. The Trump administration argues that immigration policy is exclusively a federal domain, while Penn State and other public universities contend that education policy—including tuition setting—is a traditional state function. The lawsuit also raises questions about the legal status of DACA recipients, who are not directly covered by the policy but often benefit from similar state-level measures. The administration has previously attempted to end DACA, and the lawsuit could be seen as another front in that effort.
**Fontes**
The information in this article is based on the Department of Justice’s complaint filed in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, public statements from Penn State University officials, and prior reporting on federal immigration law and higher education policies. No interviews or exclusive sources were used. The case is pending before Judge John E. Jones III.