On Thursday, a coalition of students, immigrant-rights advocates, and representatives from Austin Community College petitioned the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, seeking permission to defend the Texas Dream Act. This pivotal legislation has enabled thousands of undocumented students to pursue higher education by allowing them to pay in-state tuition rates.
The Texas Dream Act, which was enacted in 2001, allows certain undocumented students who graduated from Texas high schools to access in-state tuition, regardless of their immigration status. However, a federal judge halted the law last year following a lawsuit from the Trump administration, with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton choosing not to defend it.
Now, organizations including Students for Affordable Tuition, La Unión del Pueblo Entero (LUPE), Austin Community College, and student Oscar Silva are advocating for their right to defend the law. Lawyers from Paxton’s office and the Justice Department contend that the case should remain closed, asserting that the Texas law is incompatible with federal immigration policy.
Historical Context
Texas was a pioneer in allowing certain undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition when the Texas Dream Act was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. Signed into law by former Republican Governor Rick Perry, the act stipulated that eligible students must have graduated from a Texas high school, resided in the state for at least three years prior to graduation, and pledged to pursue permanent residency as soon as possible.
Supporters argue that the law has benefitted Texas by allowing students, who were educated in state schools, to attain higher education and subsequently contribute to the workforce. However, shifting political dynamics within the Republican party have made the law a target for opposition.
After several unsuccessful attempts by state lawmakers to amend the act, the Justice Department launched a lawsuit against Texas last year. Paxton’s office concurred with the assertion that the law conflicted with federal immigration regulations and sought an injunction to stop its enforcement. U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor agreed, issuing a block on the law on the same day.
Students for Affordable Tuition, along with LUPE and Austin Community College, filed a request to intervene, claiming that they had been adversely affected by the ruling. Silva, a graduate student from the University of North Texas, also qualified for in-state tuition under the Texas Dream Act. Their request was denied by Judge O’Connor, prompting an appeal to the 5th Circuit.
Arguments from Advocates
The advocacy groups assert their legal right to intervene and are urging the court to adopt a more lenient standard for intervention, rather than requiring them to demonstrate that their defense of the Texas Dream Act would be successful. They emphasize that the consequences are dire for their members, many of whom face steep increases in education costs, jeopardizing their ability to complete their degrees.
“The people of Texas deserve a comprehensive legal examination before a federal court nullifies their democratically established statute,” the groups stated in a legal brief presented to the 5th Circuit. Thomas Saenz, the lead attorney for Students for Affordable Tuition, highlighted that the affected students were denied due process due to the rapid overturning of the Texas Dream Act.
Saenz stressed the urgency of the situation, urging the court to consider whether the swift actions violated the due process rights of students who have benefited or could benefit from the law in the future. The groups maintain that the Texas Dream Act does not conflict with federal law as eligibility criteria extend beyond mere residency.
Federal Government’s Position
In contrast, attorneys from the Justice Department argue that the Texas Dream Act contravenes a 1996 federal immigration law, which stipulates that states cannot provide higher education benefits to individuals not lawfully present unless such benefits are also available to U.S. citizens, regardless of where they reside.
Justice Department lawyers contend that the Texas law is so clearly at odds with federal regulations that allowing outside parties to intervene would be pointless. Andrew Marshall Bernie, a Justice Department attorney, stated that they opposed the intervention based solely on its legal futility due to statutory preemption.
In response to claims of due process violations, Bernie argued that there is no constitutional requirement for courts to hear from external groups when a state law is challenged based on federal law violations. He noted that the groups did have their arguments considered in both the trial court and the 5th Circuit.
Potential Implications
Lawyers for LUPE, Austin Community College, and Silva informed the court that the Texas Dream Act has expanded access to higher education for more than 57,000 students. The law has significant financial implications, potentially costing Texas hundreds of millions annually in lost wages and consumer spending. Austin Community College indicated that a ruling upholding the block would lead to lost revenue and administrative challenges.
Since the law’s suspension, confusion has ensued among students and institutions regarding eligibility for in-state tuition. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board instructed colleges to classify undocumented students as nonresidents, creating further uncertainty. Some DACA recipients were incorrectly charged out-of-state tuition, despite assurances from Texas officials that they still qualified for in-state rates.
Next Steps
The 5th Circuit judges, Jerry E. Smith, Don R. Willett, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, are expected to issue a ruling in the coming weeks or months. Smith was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, Willett by President Donald Trump, and Ramirez by President Joe Biden.
If the court rules in favor of the student and immigrant advocacy groups, the case may return to the district court, granting advocates an opportunity to defend the Texas Dream Act. Conversely, if the court sides with Paxton’s office and the Justice Department, the injunction against the law will remain in effect.
