In a significant legal development, the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being asked by students, immigrant-rights groups, and Austin Community College to allow them to defend the Texas Dream Act. This law, which has enabled numerous immigrant students without permanent legal status to afford higher education, faces challenges after being blocked by a federal judge last year.
The Texas Dream Act permits students who have attended and graduated from Texas high schools to pay in-state tuition rates, regardless of their immigration status. This provision was halted following a lawsuit initiated by the Trump administration, with Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton choosing not to defend the law.
Now, organizations such as Students for Affordable Tuition, La Unión del Pueblo Entero (LUPE), Austin Community College, and student Oscar Silva seek to step in and defend the statute. Opposing them, Paxton’s office and the Justice Department argue that the Texas law conflicts with federal immigration regulations, and thus the case should remain closed.
The Context
Texas pioneered in-state tuition for undocumented students when the Texas Dream Act was enacted in 2001 with bipartisan support. The legislation, signed by then-Governor Rick Perry, established that students could qualify if they graduated from a Texas high school, lived in the state for at least three years before graduating, and committed to seeking permanent residency.
Proponents argue that the law benefits Texas by making higher education accessible to students already educated in its K-12 schools, thus aiding in workforce integration. However, as immigration debates intensified within Republican circles, the law became contentious.
Despite repeated attempts to amend the law, federal intervention occurred when the Justice Department filed suit, claiming a conflict with federal law. Attorney General Paxton concurred, leading to U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor’s immediate injunction against the law.
O’Connor, known for his appointment by President George W. Bush, denied the groups’ initial request to intervene, prompting their appeal to the 5th Circuit.
Arguments from Advocates
The coalition seeking to defend the Texas Dream Act argues they possess a legal right to intervene. They request the court to adopt a more flexible standard for intervention, rather than insisting on proof of a likely successful defense.
Students for Affordable Tuition emphasize the significant financial impact on its members, stating, “face significant increases in their higher education costs, putting college out of reach for many of them, some of whom have already spent years in college and will not be able to complete their specific program.”
Legal representatives assert that the swift nullification of the Texas Dream Act infringed on students’ due process rights. Thomas Saenz, leading the legal effort, underscored the urgency of a review, noting, “important to emphasize here how extraordinary that it all occurred as quickly as it did.”
The defending parties maintain that the law harmonizes with federal statutes, given that eligibility extends beyond residency to include educational and affidavit requirements.
Federal Government’s Position
Federal attorneys claim the Texas Dream Act conflicts with a 1996 law prohibiting states from offering undocumented individuals benefits not available to U.S. citizens. They argue the intervention is unnecessary, as the state law is already preempted by federal law.
Andrew Marshall Bernie, representing the Justice Department, stated, “We opposed intervention … only on the grounds that it’s legally futile because the statutes are preempted.”
Regarding due process concerns, Bernie contended that constitutional requirements do not mandate input from external parties in state law challenges, emphasizing that these groups have already had their arguments presented at various court levels.
Implications
The Texas Dream Act has facilitated higher education for over 57,000 students, according to advocacy groups presenting to the court. Financially, the void left by the law could lead to significant economic ramifications for Texas, affecting wages, consumer spending, and college revenues.
Following the injunction, confusion has arisen statewide as institutions struggle to determine in-state tuition eligibility. The Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board directed colleges to reclassify certain students as nonresidents without providing explicit guidance, leading to discrepancies such as DACA students facing out-of-state tuition charges.
Students for Affordable Tuition reported that several colleges charged DACA recipients nonresident rates, contrary to state legal advice.
Future Steps
The decision now rests with Judges Jerry E. Smith, Don R. Willett, and Irma Carrillo Ramirez. Their ruling, expected in the coming weeks or months, holds significant implications. A decision favoring the students and advocates could reopen the case at the district level, while a ruling for the state and federal attorneys would sustain the existing block.
___
This report was initially published by The Texas Tribune in conjunction with The Associated Press.
