The lawsuit was brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Illinois together with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Division. Federal attorneys argued that Illinois crossed a legal line by offering reduced tuition rates and state financial assistance to certain illegal immigrants while charging higher tuition rates to American citizens who live outside Illinois.
At the center of the dispute was Illinois’ Retention of Illinois Students & Equity Act, commonly known as the RISE Act. The law allowed qualifying illegal immigrant students to seek state-funded financial aid if they had graduated from an Illinois high school, attended school in the state for at least three years, and promised to pursue lawful permanent resident status when eligible under federal law.
Justice Department attorneys argued those provisions directly conflicted with existing federal statutes governing postsecondary education benefits. Under federal law, states generally cannot provide residency-based college benefits to illegal immigrants unless those same benefits are available to every U.S. citizen regardless of where they reside.
Federal prosecutors argued Illinois failed that test because many American students from other states were required to pay significantly higher tuition than certain illegal immigrants attending the same public institutions.
The lawsuit named Illinois Governor JB Pritzker, Attorney General Kwame Raoul, and officials overseeing numerous public colleges and universities throughout the state. Among the schools included in the litigation were the University of Illinois, Southern Illinois University, Illinois State University, Chicago State University, Eastern Illinois University, Northeastern Illinois University, and Rend Lake College.
Following the court’s decision, U.S. Attorney Steven D. Weinhoeft praised the outcome, saying it restores compliance with federal law and prevents Illinois from favoring illegal immigrants over American citizens.
“Illinois sought to incentivize illegal immigration on the taxpayer’s dime by treating illegal aliens better than U.S. citizens living in other states, in clear violation of federal law,” Weinhoeft said in a statement.
“This ruling enforces the statute Congress wrote and stops the State from putting illegal aliens ahead of American citizens.”
Supporters of the Illinois policy have long argued that students who spent much of their childhood in Illinois and graduated from local schools deserve an opportunity to continue their education regardless of immigration status. They contend the programs helped hardworking students pursue college degrees and contribute to their communities.
Opponents, however, have consistently argued that taxpayer-funded benefits should not be extended to individuals who entered or remained in the United States illegally while many American citizens from other states receive less favorable treatment. They have maintained that immigration policy is a federal responsibility and that states cannot override congressional intent by creating their own eligibility standards.
The ruling represents another courtroom victory for President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda, which has focused heavily on requiring states and local governments to comply with federal immigration laws. Since returning to office, the administration has repeatedly challenged state policies that officials believe conflict with federal statutes governing immigration enforcement and public benefits.
The legal battle may not be over. Illinois officials have not immediately announced whether they intend to appeal Judge Dugan’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. Governor Pritzker and Attorney General Raoul also did not immediately issue public responses following the ruling.
Unless a higher court intervenes, the decision prevents Illinois from continuing to enforce the tuition discount and state financial aid provisions that were struck down. The case is expected to remain closely watched nationwide, as several other states maintain similar programs that could now face renewed legal scrutiny if the Trump administration pursues additional challenges.
