US Sues Maryland Over Tuition Laws

The U.S. Justice Department sued Maryland on July 16, 2026, alleging that the state’s in‑state tuition policies for certain undocumented students violate federal law.

Federal complaint targets state residency rules

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, names the State of Maryland, the Maryland Higher Education Commission, and the University System of Maryland Board of Regents as defendants. The filing seeks both declaratory and injunctive relief to stop enforcement of Maryland Education Code § 15‑106.8 and regulation 13B.07.02.03, which it says conflict with 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a). That federal provision limits post‑secondary education benefits to residents of a state.

According to the complaint, Maryland’s original “Maryland DREAM Act” was enacted in 2011. Legislation passed in 2019 and enacted in 2020 broadened eligibility, and further amendments were made in 2024 and 2026. The Department claims that, between summer 2024 and spring 2025, qualifying students saved nearly $9 million in tuition at community colleges and public universities.

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate presented the case as part of a broader federal enforcement program. This is the thirteenth lawsuit the Justice Department has brought against state tuition arrangements that favor undocumented residents over non‑resident U.S. citizens.

Legal backdrop and similar cases

The core of the dispute rests on the Supremacy Clause, which makes federal law supreme over conflicting state statutes. The filing argues that Maryland’s policies are pre‑empted by federal law and should be blocked. It points to prior orders involving Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Nebraska, and cites a Fifth Circuit decision in United States v. Texas as precedent.

Related: Eli Lilly Buys AtaiBeckley for 3.8 Billion

Pending cases against other states suggest a pattern of federal challenges to residency‑based tuition benefits. Outcomes could shape how courts address Maryland’s policies, especially regarding the interpretation of 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a). Law firms representing public universities are advised to review residency and immigration criteria in light of the new filing.

At the same time, the complaint notes that the state’s approach has generated savings for students who would otherwise pay higher out‑of‑state rates. That financial relief, however, is juxtaposed with the claim that the benefits are illegal under federal statutes.

One practical implication is that universities may need to adjust enrollment records and tuition billing systems if the court issues an injunction. The Board of Regents will likely be scrutinized for how it implements the contested regulations.

From a broader perspective, the dispute highlights the tension between state efforts to expand educational access and the federal government’s role in setting uniform standards. For students who rely on in‑state tuition rates, a ruling could either preserve or dismantle a pathway that has already saved them millions of dollars.

What’s next for the case

The court will first consider the pre‑emption argument and the request for an injunction. Maryland, the Higher Education Commission, and the Board of Regents are expected to file responses defending the statutes and regulations.

Related: Personal Injury Claims and Criminal Cases: How They Interact

A decision on the merits could set a precedent for how other states structure tuition benefits for undocumented residents.

Legal analysts will likely compare the Maryland case with outcomes in Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Nebraska, looking for patterns in how courts balance state autonomy against federal education policy.

Until a judgment is rendered, universities and policymakers will watch the proceedings closely.

The filing serves as a reminder that federal challenges to state‑level education policies remain a contentious arena.