A graduate wears a decorated graduation cap as diplomas are awarded by the University of North Texas at Dallas on May 17, 2019. His cap reads, “unafraid, undocumented, unstoppable.”
Ben Torres/Dallas Morning News
A Texas community college and advocacy groups asked a full federal appeals court Monday to rehear their bid to intervene in a lawsuit that ended in-state tuition rates for undocumented students.
In July, a panel of three judges from the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 that the groups could not reopen the suit and defend the Texas Dream Act. The panel upheld a previous district court ruling, which found that federal law bans colleges from offering benefits to undocumented students unless citizens, including out-of-state residents, are also eligible.
Related: Appeals court blocks undocumented students from fighting end of Texas Dream Act
Article continues below this ad
The Dream Act, enacted in 2001, granted undocumented students in-state tuition rates if they could show they had lived in Texas for three years before high school graduation. Texas ended the practice last year after the U.S. Department of Justice sued the state, arguing the act violates federal law. Gov. Greg Abbott and state Attorney General Ken Paxton agreed and declined to fight the suit. In a matter of hours, a district court had blocked the law.
Related: What to know about the Texas Dream Act that gave undocumented students in-state tuition
On Monday, Austin Community College, nonprofit La Unión del Pueblo Entero, Students for Affordable Tuition, a coalition of undocumented students, and Oscar Silva, a former graduate student at the University of North Texas, asked for what is known as an “en banc” rehearing, an appeal for the full bench of judges to hear the case.
The petition marks the latest development in a legal fight that has spanned more than a year as undocumented students and advocacy groups have sought to weigh in on the case and defend the Texas Dream Act.
“The fact of the matter is that our clients to this day, more than a year later, have not been allowed to participate fully as parties in this case that is specifically targeting them,” said Fernando Nuñez, an attorney with the Mexican American Legal Defense Educational Fund, which is representing Students for Affordable Tuition.
Article continues below this ad
The groups have argued that the Dream Act did not conflict with federal law because it relied on other factors beyond residency to determine eligibility. The law required students to graduate from a Texas high school and sign an affidavit indicating they intended to apply for permanent resident status as soon as they were able to do so.
What do the petitions argue?
In their petition for a rehearing, lawyers for Austin Community College, LUPE and Silva argued that the panel’s July decision conflicts with decisions of other courts of appeals that have allowed other parties to intervene. They also argue that the panel upheld a decision despite there being no “true adversity” between the United States and Texas.
Finally, the lawyers argue that the panel’s opinion “erodes” the Tenth Amendment’s safeguards by preventing a state from setting its own eligibility requirements for in-state tuition.
“Rehearing en banc will allow the Court to correct its precedent before more courts wrongly conclude that Section 1623 allows the federal government to prescribe tuition rates at state universities in unprecedented fashion,” the petition read.
Article continues below this ad
Lawyers for Students for Affordable Tuition laid out similar arguments in their petition, including that the panel was unjustified in ruling that “intervention is futile.”
“The panel majority’s decision now allows district courts to insulate colluding parties from intervention by deciding the merits of contested issues under the guise of ‘futility,’” the petition read.
The en banc rehearing, if granted, could have implications for the 16 other states that the Trump administration has sued over their policies for in-state tuition for undocumented students. Texas was the first state to be sued in June 2025.
Impact of Dream Act repeal
Texas was the first state to extend in-state tuition to undocumented students when former Gov. Rick Perry signed the measure into law in 2001. Texas’ bipartisan push led 23 other states to pass similar laws.
Article continues below this ad
State leaders then highlighted such students’ contributions to the state’s workforce and economy.
According to the American Immigration Council, Dream Act students contribute roughly $461 million to the Texas economy every year, and there are about 73,000 undocumented students in Texas.
Former state Rep. Rick Noriega, D-Houston, who authored the Texas Dream Act, previously told The Dallas Morning News that he aimed to “level the playing field” for undocumented high school students who “hit a brick wall, which is the financial wall, to better their education and achieve their dreams.”
“The pathway is still a higher bar [for undocumented students] than any U.S. citizen for the purpose of paying the in-state tuition rate,” Noriega said.
Without the Dream Act, some students face significant tuition payment increases.
Article continues below this ad
At Austin Community College, for example, in-district tuition for 12 credits, which is typically a semester’s worth of classes, would cost $1,020, according to its tuition table. For an out-of-state or international student, that price tag rises to over $4,000.
The community college also said it expected a “direct loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars” if the repeal stands, according to a court filing.
Texas lawmakers had tried multiple times over the last two decades to repeal in-state tuition for undocumented students. They introduced similar bills last legislative session, arguing that any financial aid in Texas colleges should be prioritized for U.S. citizens. Those bills did not advance to the floor.
The Texas Dream Act has faced other legal challenges. In 2022, the Texas Public Policy Foundation, on behalf of the Young Conservatives of Texas student group, sued the University of North Texas for charging out-of-state Americans higher tuition than undocumented students who live in the state. A U.S. district judge ruled the state law was unconstitutional before an appeals court reversed that ruling in 2023, allowing the school to continue its tuition policies.
Article continues below this ad
The DMN Education Lab deepens the coverage and conversation about urgent education issues critical to the future of North Texas.
The DMN Education Lab is a community-funded journalism initiative, with support from Bobby and Lottye Lyle, Communities Foundation of Texas, The Dallas Foundation, Dallas Regional Chamber, Deedie Rose, Garrett and Cecilia Boone, Judy and Jim Gibbs, The Meadows Foundation, The Murrell Foundation, Ron Steinhart, Solutions Journalism Network, Southern Methodist University, Sydney Smith Hicks, and the University of Texas at Dallas. The Dallas Morning News retains full editorial control of the Education Lab’s journalism.