The legal and political spotlight has once again turned to California, where Governor Gavin Newsom faces a barrage of lawsuits from the Department of Justice (DOJ) over a series of controversial state measures. The latest salvo, filed on Thursday, November 20, 2025, in the Eastern District of California, targets a measure that grants in-state tuition benefits to undocumented immigrants—an issue that has long been a flashpoint in the nation’s immigration debate.
According to Fox News, the DOJ’s lawsuit alleges that California’s education code discriminates against out-of-state U.S. citizens by forcing them to pay higher tuition rates than those living in the country illegally. The federal attorneys didn’t mince words, labeling the arrangement “unequal treatment” and asserting that it’s “squarely” at odds with federal law. Their argument hinges on a federal statute prohibiting states from granting tuition benefits to undocumented immigrants based on residency unless those same benefits are extended to all U.S. citizens, regardless of where they live.
This legal challenge is hardly an isolated incident. In fact, it marks the third federal lawsuit the DOJ has filed against Governor Newsom in just one week—a remarkable escalation in the ongoing tug-of-war between California’s progressive policies and the federal government’s interpretation of the law. The DOJ has made it clear that they see these legal actions as part of a broader effort to rein in what they view as California’s disregard for federal statutes.
“From racial gerrymandering, to undermining law enforcement, to discriminating against American students, Newsom has flagrantly disregarded federal law in his quest to ruin California,” a DOJ official told Fox News Digital. “We will see him in court as many times as necessary.” The official’s blunt assessment underscores the deepening rift between state and federal authorities, particularly as the 2028 presidential race begins to take shape and Newsom’s national profile continues to rise.
California’s measure granting in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants isn’t unique. The DOJ has also filed similar lawsuits in other states, including Minnesota. There, the case has been delayed, at least temporarily, by the recent government shutdown. But Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, a Democrat, has moved to have the lawsuit dismissed. He contends that the DOJ is misinterpreting federal law and insists that U.S. citizens do, in fact, have access to the same tuition benefits as undocumented students. “The DOJ is not properly reading the federal laws,” Ellison has argued, according to Fox News. “U.S. citizens do indeed have access to the same benefits as undocumented students.”
California officials, for their part, have responded to the DOJ’s legal offensive with defiance and a dash of bravado. “The DOJ has now filed three meritless, politically motivated lawsuits against California in a single week. Good luck, Trump. We’ll see you in court,” a spokesperson for Newsom’s office declared in a statement quoted by Fox News. The statement frames the lawsuits as part of a broader political strategy, suggesting that the federal government is targeting Newsom—widely seen as a potential contender in the 2028 presidential election—more for political gain than for principled legal reasons.
The tuition benefits lawsuit is only one front in this multi-pronged legal war. Just last week, the DOJ filed a separate complaint challenging a newly passed California ballot measure. That measure, if enacted, would allow the state legislature to redraw five congressional districts in a way that critics say favors Democrats. The DOJ’s suit claims this is a clear case of racial gerrymandering and an attempt to tip the political scales in the state’s favor. The legal battle over redistricting is expected to have far-reaching implications, not just for California but for the national political landscape as well.
And if that weren’t enough, the DOJ has also taken aim at a California law passed in September that prohibits immigration officials from wearing masks that conceal their identities while on duty. The federal government argues that this measure undermines law enforcement by making it harder for federal agents to do their jobs safely and effectively. California lawmakers, on the other hand, maintain that the law is necessary to promote transparency and accountability in immigration enforcement. The dispute over this law is emblematic of the broader philosophical divide between state and federal authorities on issues of immigration and law enforcement.
These lawsuits come at a particularly fraught moment in U.S. politics. With the Trump administration intensifying its scrutiny of Democratic-led states and Newsom’s star rising on the national stage, the legal battles are as much about political positioning as they are about the specifics of state and federal law. Both sides are digging in for what promises to be a prolonged and high-stakes fight, with implications that could reverberate far beyond California’s borders.
The DOJ’s strategy, as evidenced by its flurry of legal filings, appears to be one of relentless pressure. By hitting Newsom and California with multiple lawsuits in rapid succession, federal officials hope to force the state to defend its policies on several fronts at once. Critics of this approach argue that it smacks of political retribution and could set a dangerous precedent for federal-state relations. Supporters, meanwhile, insist that the DOJ is simply upholding the rule of law and ensuring that states do not flout federal statutes with impunity.
For Newsom, the stakes couldn’t be higher. As the nation’s most populous state, California has long been a laboratory for progressive policies on everything from climate change to immigration. The outcome of these lawsuits could determine not only the fate of specific measures but also the broader question of how much leeway states have to chart their own course in defiance of federal mandates. Newsom’s willingness to fight these battles in court—rather than back down—signals that he is prepared to make a stand, even if it means enduring months or years of legal wrangling.
Meanwhile, students and families across California and the nation are left watching from the sidelines, uncertain about what the future holds for college tuition policies and access to higher education. The debate over who gets in-state tuition—and under what circumstances—touches on deep questions of fairness, citizenship, and the meaning of equal opportunity in America. As the legal process unfolds, those questions will remain at the heart of the controversy.
With the legal and political stakes rising, all eyes are now on the courts. The coming months will reveal whether California’s bold policies can withstand federal scrutiny, or whether the DOJ’s aggressive legal strategy will force the state to change course. For now, the battle lines are drawn—and neither side shows any sign of backing down.
