Federal Court Invalidates Illinois Tuition and State Aid Provisions for Undocumented Students

On July 24, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois issued final judgment in United States v. State of Illinois, No. 25-cv-1691-DWD, holding that several Illinois higher education statutes are unconstitutional and invalid as applied to individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States. Specifically, the Court ruled that the Acevedo Act’s provisions allowing individuals who are not citizens or permanent residents of the United States to receive in-state tuition, including Section 6-4a of the Public Community College Act, are unconstitutional as they are preempted by federal law.  The U.S. District Court also held that provisions of the Retention of Illinois Students and Equity (“RISE”) Act, 110 ILCS 986/1 et seq., and the Illinois DREAM Act, 110 ILCS 947/67 et seq., are unconstitutional to the extent that they provide educational benefits to individuals who are not U.S. citizens, and which are not available to U.S. citizens regardless of their residency.

Case History and Status of Appeal

The case arose after the federal government sued the State of Illinois and multiple Illinois universities, a community college, and other State agencies alleging that the defendants violated federal law by providing educational benefits to non-citizen individuals on the basis of their residency in Illinois, and such benefits are not available to United States citizens who are not residents. The federal government alleged that these practices, which complied with the Illinois statutes referenced above, violated 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a). That federal statute bars states from providing certain postsecondary education benefits on the basis of residence to individuals not lawfully present in the United States unless the same benefits are available to U.S. citizens regardless of residency or domicile.

The district court judge agreed with the federal government’s argument, declaring the Illinois statutes unconstitutional and permanently enjoining the named defendants from enforcing them. There are numerous implications of this decision, most notably whether higher education institutions in Illinois can charge in-state or in-district tuition, or provide other educational benefits, to individuals that are not citizens of the United States, if other individuals who are citizens cannot receive those benefits based on residency. Based on this court’s decision, and as applied to the defendants in this case, such benefits to non-citizens violate 8 U.S.C. §1623(a) and the State laws that provide a process for such benefits are unconstitutional.

It should be noted that the court stayed the decision until Friday, August 7^th, 2026, meaning the decision is not effective until that date. The court specifically stayed the decision to permit the defendants to appeal. Should the defendants appeal to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals (no appeal has been filed as of the time this Law Alert was published), they could seek a longer stay so that the current legal framework may remain in place while the appeal proceeds. If no additional stay is granted, the defendants will need to comply with 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a), which prohibits providing educational benefits to non-citizens if such benefits are not available to U.S. citizens regardless of their residency.

The court’s injunction is binding on the named defendants in the case. However, we recommend contacting your Robbins Schwartz attorney to discuss the impact of the court’s federal preemption ruling on your institution if you are not a named defendant, i.e., the court’s finding that the Illinois statutes are unconstitutional.    

What Institutions Should Watch

For now, Illinois community colleges and public universities should understand that the legal landscape remains unsettled. Institutions may wish to begin identifying policies, forms, and student-facing materials that rely on the challenged tuition and aid provisions, particularly with respect to tuition classification under 110 ILCS 805/6-4a, and aid eligibility tied to the RISE Act or Illinois DREAM Act. There are also numerous considerations and potential risks associated with using a college foundation to provide financial assistance for students who are not lawfully present in the United States if those benefits are not also available to U.S. citizens regardless of their residency. Additional guidance may be forthcoming once the appellate posture and possible extension of the stay becomes clearer.

Next Steps

Robbins Schwartz is monitoring developments in this matter, including any notice of appeal and any request for a further stay. Additional guidance will likely follow this publication.