The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board sent a letter to higher education institution presidents on June 18, directing them to identify undocumented students to ensure they pay out-of-state tuition starting next semester.
The board stated it would not provide specific guidance to universities on how to identify undocumented students. However, the University of Texas System said it would begin asking students for documents of lawful presence.
“To comply with a federal court injunction and the Texas Education Code, students attending UT institutions who do not provide documentation to demonstrate that they are lawfully present in Texas will be charged nonresident tuition beginning in the 2025 fall semester,” UT System said in a statement.
UT System also said any students who have been receiving in-state tuition based on affidavits will need to provide documentation of lawful presence.
A federal judge struck down the Texas Dream Act earlier this month after the state and the Trump administration sued, calling the law unconstitutional. The law previously allowed undocumented students to receive in-state tuition if they had lived in Texas for at least three years and signed an affidavit stating they would seek legal status as soon as they could.
During the 2024-2025 academic year, in-state tuition at UT was $11,678, while out-of-state tuition sat at $42,778, according to U.S. News & World Report. This means undocumented students who previously qualified for in-state tuition under the Texas Dream Act could have their tuition more than tripled.
Several civil rights groups in Texas filed a motion seeking to pause the injunction of the Texas Dream Act because a federal district court did not have enough time to question the law’s constitutionality. Among the groups filing the motion are the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and the Texas Civil Rights Project on behalf of Austin Community College’s District Board of Trustees and others.
“We want to intervene in this case because these other interests were not given an opportunity to be heard from the interveners that we represent,” said Kassandra Gonzalez, a senior attorney at Texas Civil Rights Project. “The (Texas) Dream Act, before it is enjoined, deserves the full adversarial proceeding of briefing on the merits and a defense constitutionally.”
Although civil rights groups are trying to intervene, it is yet to be seen whether this motion will be heard in court. However, Gonzalez said the Texas Dream Act is constitutional, and the removal of the act will negatively impact undocumented students across the state who are pursuing a higher education.
“The younger generations are counting on receiving in-state tuition when they graduate from Texas public high schools, and this opportunity keeps our youth ambitious,” Gonzalez said. “There are a lot of individuals anxious and wondering what this means for them and if this means that they may have to give up their education or pause it.”
Editor’s note: A previous version of this article misstated that the U.S. Supreme Court did not have enough time to question the Texas Dream Act’s constitutionality. It was a federal district court that did not have enough time to make that decision, not the U.S. Supreme Court. The Texan regrets this error.
