Please Follow us on Gab, Minds, Telegram, Rumble, Gettr, Truth Social, Twitter, YouTube, Instagram

Note this article was updated to reflect statements from Gov. Ned Lamont and AG William Tong.

Today, the Department of Justice filed lawsuits against three states that seek to undermine our Nation by placing aliens over citizens in clear defiance of Congress’s commands. The Department filed complaints against New York, Connecticut, and Vermont, challenging state laws that provide in-state tuition and financial assistance for illegal aliens. These laws unconstitutionally discriminate against U.S. citizens who are not afforded the same reduced tuition rates or scholarships, create incentives for illegal immigration, and reward illegal aliens with benefits that U.S. citizens are not eligible for, all in direct conflict with federal law.

“Congress long ago made clear that States cannot put illegal aliens over our Nation’s own citizens,” said Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward. “By granting illegal aliens in-state tuition, New York, Vermont, and Connecticut are doing just that. No more. As of today, we have now sued every state in the Second Circuit that seeks to thwart Congress’s clear prohibition by placing alien over citizen. And our efforts will not cease until President Trump’s promise is fulfilled: illegal aliens will not receive benefits denied to our Nation’s own citizens.”

“This is a simple matter of federal law: colleges cannot provide benefits to illegal aliens that they do not provide to U.S. citizens,” said Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “This Department of Justice will not tolerate American students being treated like second-class citizens in their own country.”

In the complaints, the United States seeks to enjoin enforcement of New York, Connecticut, and Vermont laws, regulations, and policies that require colleges and universities to provide in-state tuition rates for all aliens who maintain in-state residency, regardless of whether those aliens are lawfully present in the United States. Additionally, the complaints seek to enjoin New York, Connecticut, and Vermont from enforcing state laws, regulations, and policies that afford financial assistance and scholarships to illegal aliens.

Today’s lawsuits mark 17 lawsuits challenging in-state tuition for illegal aliens. Under the leadership of Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Department’s efforts have already delivered wins for the American people, as five similar lawsuits in Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Nebraska, and Illinois have resulted favorable orders permanently enjoining and declaring unconstitutional analogous laws that gave reduced tuition to illegal aliens, including an order from the Fifth Circuit. Lawsuits against other states that similarly put illegal aliens ahead of U.S. citizens are pending across the across the country in Minnesota, Virginia, California, New Jersey, Kansas, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Maryland, and Colorado.

The Connecticut Complaint

In United States v. State of Connecticut et al., Civil No. 3:26-cv-1278 (D. Conn., filed Aug. 10, 2026), the Department of Justice challenges five Connecticut statutes that extend postsecondary education benefits to illegal aliens on the basis of state residency while denying the same benefits to U.S. citizens who reside outside Connecticut.

The defendants are the State of Connecticut, the Office of Higher Education, Commissioner of Higher Education Timothy Larson (in his official capacity), the Board of Regents for Higher Education, and the Board of Trustees of the University of Connecticut.

The complaint alleges that these laws are expressly preempted by 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a), which prohibits an alien who is not lawfully present from being eligible for any postsecondary education benefit based on state residence unless a U.S. citizen is eligible for the same benefit without regard to residency. There are no exceptions to this rule.

The challenged provisions are:

• Conn. Gen. Stat. § 10a-29(9) (enacted 2011 as H.B. 6390), which grants in-state tuition rates to certain illegal aliens who have completed at least two years of high school in Connecticut and meet other residency criteria, while requiring U.S. citizens from other states to pay a higher tuition rate;
• § 10a-161d, which extends institutional financial aid eligibility to qualifying illegal aliens;
• § 10a-77(f), which directs a portion of community-college tuition revenue toward aid for “residents,” including illegal aliens who qualify under the in-state tuition statute;
• § 10a-173(d), which makes illegal aliens eligible for need-based grants under the Roberta B. Willis Scholarship program; and
• § 10a-19m, which provides student-loan reimbursement payments of up to $5,000 per year (maximum $20,000) to certain long-term residents, including illegal aliens, while denying U.S. citizens not residing in Connecticut that same benefit.

"These statutes constitute blatant unequal treatment favoring illegal aliens over U.S. citizens from other states," wrote the DOJ. "Worse, such preferential treatment is squarely prohibited and preempted by federal law mandating that “an alien who is not lawfully present in the United States shall not be eligible on the basis of residence within a State . . . for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for such a benefit . . . without regard to whether the citizen or national is such a resident.”

The United States seeks a declaratory judgment that the statutes violate the Supremacy Clause, a permanent injunction barring their enforcement, and an award of costs and fees.

Governor Ned Lamont defended Connecticut’s policy, stating that a bipartisan majority of legislators agreed children who grow up and graduate from the state’s public schools—including those who have applied for legal status—should be able to afford college in Connecticut.

He emphasized the state’s strong education system and the economic benefits of broader access to higher education, while criticizing the Trump administration as out of touch with working families and accusing it of attacking vulnerable communities through the lawsuit.

Attorney General William Tong rejected federal interference, asserting that the federal government has no authority to dictate how Connecticut runs its schools or to force the state to deny educational opportunities to its students.

He noted his earlier support for the 2011 law as a legislator and pledged to defend it, arguing that all eligible Connecticut students deserve access to in-state tuition and financial aid so they can learn, advance, and pursue their dreams.

Tong asserted that the President does not control the state’s public colleges and universities.

‘NO AD’ subscription for CDM!  Sign up here and support real investigative journalism and help save the republic!'