Filed Date: June 25, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenges the constitutionality of Minnesota’s state tuition and scholarship policies for undocumented students. On June 25, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, the Minnesota Office of Higher Education, and the State of Minnesota. Represented by the Department’s Civil Division and Office of Immigration Litigation, the United States sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that two Minnesota statutes violated federal immigration law by granting in-state tuition and state-funded scholarships to certain noncitizens who are not lawfully present in the United States.
The case was assigned to Judge Katherine M. Menendez.
DOJ targeted two laws: Minn. Stat. § 135A.043, which provides in-state tuition to noncitizens meeting certain Minnesota residency criteria regardless of immigration status; and Minn. Stat. § 136A.1465, which established the North Star Promise Program offering state-funded tuition scholarships to “resident students,” a category that includes undocumented students under Minnesota law. The United States alleged that these provisions conflict with 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a), which prohibits states from granting postsecondary education benefits “on the basis of residence within a State” to unlawfully present noncitizens unless the same benefit is made available to all U.S. citizens, regardless of residence.
DOJ argued that the Minnesota laws expressly and impermissibly favor unlawfully present noncitizens over U.S. citizens from other states, thereby violating the Supremacy Clause and principles of express federal preemption. Citing Executive Orders 14218 and 14287, along with legislative history surrounding the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), the complaint contended that Minnesota’s laws undermined federal immigration policy by creating incentives for unauthorized immigration. The plaintiff noted that similar laws in Texas had recently been declared preempted in United States v. Texas, No. 7:25-cv-55 (N.D. Tex.), and submitted the resulting consent judgment as precedent.
On July 23, 2025, the Minnesota defendants moved to dismiss the complaint under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), arguing that 8 U.S.C. § 1623 does not preempt Minnesota’s tuition policies because (1) the laws do not provide benefits “on the basis of residence,” and (2) the benefits are also available to nonresident U.S. citizens who satisfy objective eligibility criteria, including graduation from a Minnesota high school. Defendants also contended that § 1623 lacks preemptive force under Murphy v. NCAA because it regulates states, not private actors, and that DOJ’s expansive interpretation would raise serious Tenth Amendment and anticommandeering concerns. Additionally, the state argued that DOJ lacked standing to sue Governor Walz and Attorney General Ellison, who do not enforce the challenged provisions.
As of late July 2025, briefing on the motion to dismiss remained pending. The case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Brian Chen (8/6/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70631044/parties/united-states-v-walz/
Menendez, Katherine M (Minnesota)
Perez, Elianis N (Minnesota)
Restrepo, Luz (Minnesota)
Bies, Katherine (Minnesota)
Kramer, Elizabeth C (Minnesota)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70631044/united-states-v-walz/
Last updated Aug. 21, 2025, 1:23 p.m.
State / Territory: Minnesota
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Litigation and Investigations Involving the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: June 25, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
U.S.A.
Plaintiff Type(s):
U.S. Dept of Justice plaintiff
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Governor Tim Walz in his official capacity, None
Attorney General Keith Ellison in his official capacity, None
The Minnesota Office of Higher Education, None
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Immigration/Border: