The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a high-profile lawsuit against the state of Minnesota and its Democratic Governor Tim Walz over a controversial program that offers state financial aid and in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants seeking higher education.

The lawsuit, filed this week, marks the latest move in a broader federal crackdown on state-level programs perceived to prioritize illegal immigrants over U.S. citizens. It comes on the heels of a similar DOJ victory in Texas and ongoing legal action in Kentucky — all part of an aggressive effort by the Trump administration to reassert federal immigration policy and limit state-funded benefits for non-citizens.

The Lawsuit: DOJ vs. the Minnesota Dream Act

At the heart of the legal battle is the Minnesota Dream Act, a law enacted in 2013 that allows undocumented immigrants living in the state to access in-state college tuition and state financial aid — benefits typically reserved for legal residents.

Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a statement, didn’t mince words:

“No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” Bondi said.

“The Department of Justice just won on this exact issue in Texas, and we look forward to taking this fight to Minnesota in order to protect the rights of American citizens first.”

The DOJ claims the program violates the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against U.S. citizens who live out of state and are required to pay significantly higher tuition costs. Their legal filing specifically targets the Minnesota Office of Higher Education and State Attorney General Keith Ellison as co-defendants.

“The magnitude of this discrimination against U.S. citizens is substantial,” reads the DOJ’s statement. “The cost of tuition for resident students is significantly lower than for U.S. citizens that are not in-state residents.”

Political Fallout and Walz’s Response

Governor Tim Walz, who gained national attention as the Democratic vice-presidential nominee in the 2024 election, has not shied away from defending the Dream Act and similar initiatives. Following the lawsuit, Walz acknowledged political headwinds:

“The country was not ready for the message we were promoting,” he reportedly said, referencing his and his running mate’s broader immigration and equity platform.

So far, Walz has not issued a formal legal response to the DOJ’s filing. State Attorney General Keith Ellison, a key backer of the Minnesota Dream Act, is expected to lead the legal defense.

A Broader Legal Campaign by the Trump Administration

This lawsuit is just one piece of a much larger effort by the Trump administration to eliminate what it views as “preferential treatment” for illegal immigrants.

In April, President Trump signed an executive order directing all federal agencies to review and dismantle “laws, regulations, policies, and practices” that extend any benefit or advantage to non-citizens over American citizens.

The order marked a turning point in domestic immigration policy, shifting focus from border enforcement to internal systems — particularly in education, healthcare, and public services.

Supreme Court Limits on Nationwide Injunctions: A Boost for Trump’s Agenda

Friday also brought a major legal victory for the Trump administration, as the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a 6–3 decision limiting the use of nationwide injunctions — court orders that had been used repeatedly in recent years to halt the implementation of presidential policies across all 50 states.

The decision, with all six GOP-appointed justices in the majority, means lower courts can no longer issue sweeping blocks on executive actions unless those rulings apply only to the parties directly involved.

Attorney General Bondi hailed the ruling as a game-changer:

“Today, the Supreme Court instructed district courts to STOP the endless barrage of nationwide injunctions against President Trump. This Department of Justice will continue to zealously defend the president’s policies and his authority to implement them.”

What’s at Stake: Birthright Citizenship and Future Legal Battles

One of the most significant policies now poised to advance due to the ruling is Trump’s executive order restricting birthright citizenship — an action that had previously been halted by multiple nationwide injunctions.

The order seeks to reinterpret the 14th Amendment by granting automatic citizenship only to children born in the U.S. whose parents are either U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents.

Analysts estimate this policy, if enacted, could deny automatic citizenship to as many as 255,000 babies born each year to undocumented immigrants or temporary visa holders.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear arguments on the issue in its next session, beginning in October, after three federal courts had blocked the policy from going into effect.

What It All Means: A Shift in How America Defines Citizenship and Benefits

The lawsuit against Minnesota isn’t just about financial aid or tuition discounts. It’s part of a broader legal and political movement to redefine who gets access to public benefits, and on what terms.

Critics argue the lawsuit weaponizes federal power to undermine compassionate, community-focused state programs, while supporters claim it’s about restoring fairness to U.S. citizens who are being overlooked.

At the heart of it is a fundamental question facing America in 2025:

Who deserves the full rights and benefits of living in the United States — and who decides?