MALDEF will defend in court the right of undocumented college students to pay in-state tuition at public institutions

By Nadir Benslimane
Nonprofit Sector News
August 14, 2026

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF) plans to intervene in all 14 lawsuits brought by the Trump administration that challenge state laws that allow undocumented students who meet state requirements to pay in-state tuition at public colleges and universities.

These cases come with renewed Trump administration challenges to the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision Plyler v. Doe, which established that states cannot deny undocumented children access to public K–12 education based on their immigration status.

In 1982, MALDEF challenged a Texas law that denied undocumented children access to free public education. The case reached the Supreme Court, which ruled that Texas had violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The decision established that states could not deny students access to public K-12 education based on the immigration status of the students nor their parents.

Today, MALDEF is working to defend that precedent as immigration enforcement and policies use every measure available to dislodge immigrant communities from the United States with a particular focus on public K-12 and higher education as an attempt to disenfranchise immigrant students and their families. MALDEF President Thomas Saenz said he considers the federal government’s challenges to state tuition-equity laws the biggest current threat to undocumented students’ access to higher education.

The 14 cases seek to invalidate state laws that allow undocumented students who meet state requirements to pay in-state tuition rather than higher out-of-state rates. Saenz said that, in some cases, the federal government has sought agreements with state attorneys general that would eliminate the laws without giving affected students an opportunity to defend their interests.

“Our defense, I must say, is a very strong one,” Saenz said. He argued that the federal government’s position that state tuition-equity laws are preempted, or superseded, by federal law is incorrect. “This is the first administration, in 25 years, to ever contend that these state tuition equity laws are somehow preempted to federal law,” he said. “We have moved to intervene in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, and successfully intervened in Kentucky to defend student’s rights to equal tuition and access to higher education.”

MALDEF’s legal battles over tuition equity are only one part of its broader effort to protect immigrant students’ access to education. Saenz said immigration enforcement can affect students even when agents are not physically present at schools. K-12 Dive, a newsletter focusing on K 12 education, reported at least 17 ICE encounters on school grounds since Jan. 21, 2025. The publication reported that the Department of Homeland Security changed its policy in January 2025 to allow immigration enforcement in locations previously designated as “sensitive areas,” including schools, churches and hospitals. K-12 Dive said it filed additional public-records requests in January 2026 and was awaiting a response that ICE has not responded to.

Saenz said immigration enforcement in surrounding communities can create fear and uncertainty among immigrant families. Parents may worry about being separated from their children, interacting with institutions or traveling to school in fear of ICE. Those concerns, he said, can affect students’ attendance and ability to focus on their education.

Research has also documented the indirect effects of immigration enforcement on students. A 2018 policy brief from Stanford University’s Institute for Economic Policy Research found that Hispanic public-school enrollment declined in communities that adopted partnerships with ICE between 2005 and 2011. Researchers estimated that Hispanic enrollment fell by 7.3%, with the decline reaching 9.4% among elementary school students.

“We can say with confidence that when their families moved to get away from aggressive immigration enforcement, the education of these children was put at risk,” the researchers wrote. Although Stanford research predates the Trump administration’s current immigration policies and has not measured their effects, it provides evidence for Saenz’s broader concern that immigration enforcement can affect children’s education both directly and indirectly. Saenz stresses that exclusion and marginalization needs to be addressed at a community level.

Saenz urged schools to provide families with accurate information about their rights and reassure students that they should continue attending school. Transportation, safety planning, and mental health support for students needs to be the top priorities for schools concerned about their immigration students.

“Our consistent message has been that kids should stay in school and for parents to understand that schools are often the safest spaces for students to be in,” Saenz said. “There have been challenges across the country to prevent undocumented students from attending public school even though it is a violation of Plyler v. Doe, but we don’t see these challenges as a true threat.” Saenz maintains that the greatest threat to Plyler v. Doe is political rather than legal. He pointed to the decision’s more than four decades of precedent and argued that its protections have also been reinforced through federal statutes.

“Ultimately, anyone who cares about education and the future of this nation understands that if you exclude children from school then it will only result in bleeding schools dry of their entire student population causing public schools to fail nationwide,” Saenz said. “It is more about political theater rather than policy.”

Looking ahead, Saenz called for federal leadership committed to supporting migrants, English learners, immigrant students and children of immigrants. Saenz and MALDEF remain steadfast in their belief that all students not only deserve the rights to an accessible and public education, both K-12 and higher (and free, K-12) but that they deserve dignity and the opportunity to contribute to this nation as full-fledged citizens.

“We need a commitment for an equitable education for all students so we can have future citizens prepared to contribute and support their communities and the nation as a whole,” Saenz concluded.