DOJ Sues New Jersey for In-State Tuition to Undocumented Students

The Department of Justice filed suit against New Jersey on Thursday for laws that grant illegal immigrants in-state college tuition rates and state financial aid while American citizens from other states must pay higher costs. The action forms part of a broader Trump administration effort to end policies that create incentives for illegal immigration and impose hidden costs on citizens. At the same time new records show the FBI dramatically expanded its immigration workforce multiplying the number of employees assigned to such duties by a factor of 23 in the first nine months of President Trump's second term.

Justice Department officials described New Jersey's 2013 and 2018 laws as blatant violations of federal statutes that prohibit states from offering postsecondary benefits to people unlawfully present unless United States citizens receive identical treatment. The complaint names the state along with its higher education commission the educational opportunity fund and senior officials including Acting Secretary of Higher Education Margo Chaly. Federal prosecutors argue these policies discriminate against U.S. citizens who receive no equivalent discount and actively reward illegal entry by lowering the price of remaining in the country.

"These laws unconstitutionally discriminate against U.S. citizens who are not afforded the same reduced tuition rates scholarships or subsidies create incentives for illegal immigration and reward illegal immigrants with benefits that U.S. citizens are not eligible for all in direct conflict with federal law" the department said in a statement. Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate added that the matter is straightforward colleges cannot give illegal aliens advantages denied to citizens. The suit seeks to block enforcement of both statutes and bring New Jersey into compliance with longstanding federal requirements.

This case represents the ninth such lawsuit targeting state measures often called Dream Acts. Similar policies in other states have drawn federal scrutiny for charging out-of-state American students higher rates while granting illegal immigrants who attended local high schools the resident discount. The practical effect has been to shift limited seats and taxpayer subsidies away from citizens toward those who entered or remained in the country in violation of law. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche's department framed the litigation as defense of equal treatment under federal immigration statutes rather than an attack on education.

These legal moves coincide with an enormous shift of law enforcement resources toward immigration matters. Federal Bureau of Investigation records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request reveal that personnel assigned to immigration-related duties grew from 279 before President Trump's January 2025 inauguration to more than 6,500 by September. In total 9,161 FBI employees participated in immigration work during that period out of roughly 38,000 total bureau staff. The redirection occurred under Director Kash Patel who has aligned the agency closely with administration priorities on deportation and border security.

The scale surprised immigration policy analysts across the spectrum. Aaron Reichlin-Melnick a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council called the numbers huge and shocking. David J. Bier director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute warned that moving agents from criminal investigations to civil immigration enforcement diverts resources away from public safety threats. Bier noted the FBI appeared to place substantial manpower at the disposal of Immigration and Customs Enforcement during the opening phase of the administration's deportation push.

Yet the reallocation reflects a deliberate choice to treat immigration enforcement as a core federal responsibility rather than an afterthought. Previous administrations' reluctance to interior enforcement had left states free to enact policies that function as magnets for further illegal migration. Benefits such as subsidized tuition reduce the economic penalty for unlawful presence and encourage more arrivals who then compete with citizens for classroom space jobs and public services. Over time these incentives compound straining state budgets schools and labor markets that serve American families first.

New Jersey is not alone. Many states adopted comparable measures during periods of lax federal oversight assuming Washington would not object. The current litigation campaign signals that assumption no longer holds. By challenging the financial advantages extended to illegal immigrants the Justice Department aims to restore the principle that citizenship carries distinct benefits and that states cannot nullify federal immigration law through selective generosity.

Critics of the FBI's shift worry that traditional criminal work may suffer. The bureau's mandate has always included counterterrorism public corruption and violent crime. Supporters counter that large-scale illegal immigration itself generates downstream criminal activity from document fraud to exploitation by smuggling networks and that restoring deterrence at the interior protects communities more effectively than scattered prosecutions alone. Data from earlier waves of enforcement suggest that consistent application of immigration statutes reduces recidivism and eases pressure on local police who otherwise bear the daily costs of unchecked unlawful presence.

The dual developments Thursday underscore an administration betting that rigorous enforcement and removal of perverse incentives will produce measurable gains for American workers students and taxpayers. Whether courts sustain the legal challenges and whether the FBI's redeployed personnel deliver lasting results remains to be seen. What is already clear is that federal authorities have moved with speed and scale to reverse years of policies that treated illegal immigration as a forgivable lifestyle choice rather than a violation of sovereign boundaries. New Jersey's case will likely test how far states may go in subsidizing those boundaries' erosion at citizens' expense.