Kentucky has officially ended its policy of offering in-state tuition to illegal immigrants at public colleges and universities, following a high-profile lawsuit and months of legal wrangling. The decision, which has sparked heated debate across the state and beyond, comes after the U.S. Justice Department took legal action against Kentucky for violating federal law by allowing undocumented students to pay the same tuition rates as in-state residents.
According to Fox News Digital, the change was prompted by a lawsuit filed in June 2025 by Attorney General Pam Bondi. The suit targeted Kentucky’s Council on Postsecondary Education (KCPE) and challenged a state regulation—13 KAR 2:045—that had permitted illegal immigrants to receive in-state tuition benefits. The Justice Department argued that this practice ran afoul of 18 USC 1623, a federal statute that prohibits states from granting postsecondary education benefits to aliens not lawfully present in the United States, unless those same benefits are available to all U.S. citizens, regardless of state residency.
"Under current federal law, any illegal immigrant is barred from eligibility for postsecondary education benefits, like in-state tuition, unless the same benefits are offered to every U.S. citizen," Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman told Fox News Digital in an interview on August 28, 2025. Coleman added, “No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” echoing Attorney General Bondi’s statement from when the lawsuit was first filed.
The legal battle culminated in a settlement agreement between the federal government and Kentucky’s higher education officials, reached about two months after the Justice Department initiated its lawsuit. As reported by Fox News Digital, the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education agreed to change its policy, effectively ending the in-state tuition benefit for undocumented students. However, the deal is not yet official until a federal district judge signs off on the consent judgment—a step that both parties expect to be a mere formality.
Foreign students who legally obtain student visas have always been required to pay out-of-state tuition in Kentucky, as is standard practice in most states. The now-rescinded policy had uniquely positioned Kentucky as one of the states offering a significant financial incentive to undocumented students. According to Coleman, this policy "incentivized noncitizens to come to Kentucky over other states that did not offer the in-state discounts." He described the situation as "nonsensical," saying, "It’s a term from a Harry Potter book or a Roald Dahl book, but nonsensical is spot on and what we’re dealing with here."
The lawsuit itself was built on legal precedent, drawing upon a previous successful case against Texas educators over similar in-state tuition practices. The Department of Justice argued that Kentucky’s approach not only violated federal law but also undermined the principle of equal treatment for U.S. citizens. As Bondi remarked, "No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens."
Yet, the decision has not gone unchallenged. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), a prominent Latino civil rights organization, filed a motion arguing that the federal government lacked constitutional authority to intervene in Kentucky’s tuition policy. MALDEF warned that if the regulation was overturned, affected students could see their tuition increase by up to 152 percent, with some paying as much as $897 per semester credit hour, up from $446. Their motion sought to protect the interests of students who stood to lose substantial financial support as a result of the policy change.
While the Justice Department originally named Kentucky Governor Andrew Beshear as a defendant in the case, Beshear’s office pointed out that the KCPE operates independently of the governor. Nonetheless, as Fox News Digital reported, Coleman noted that governors do have a role in appointing members to the council, suggesting that state leadership could not be entirely absolved of responsibility. "He appointed most members of the KCPE and in real world you’re responsible for those that you appoint to these roles," Coleman observed, adding a layer of political complexity to the unfolding story.
Coleman also expressed disappointment that it took the intervention of both the Justice Department and the state’s top law enforcement official to prompt the KCPE to comply with federal law. "I do applaud the fact that (KCPE) did the right thing and followed the law, but it took the Justice Department and all of its legal leverage and the chief law enforcement officer of the state opining on the legality before they did right thing. That’s disappointing," he told Fox News Digital. "They should be stewards of these institutions. What they do is important and we have great universities in this commonwealth. They need to be focusing on incentivizing the best and the brightest to come to this commonwealth, not incentivizing those that are out of status, that are violating our laws."
The controversy touches on wider national debates over immigration, education, and fairness. Kentucky now joins a growing list of states that have ended in-state tuition benefits for undocumented immigrants in response to federal legal pressure. As the Justice Department continues to monitor similar policies in more than a dozen other states, the Kentucky case could serve as a bellwether for future legal action and policy shifts nationwide.
For students and families directly impacted by the change, the financial consequences are significant. As MALDEF highlighted, the cost of attending college could more than double for some undocumented students, raising concerns about access to higher education and the broader implications for immigrant communities. Supporters of the new policy, meanwhile, argue that it restores fairness and upholds the rule of law, ensuring that U.S. citizens are not disadvantaged in their own state.
Despite the contentious nature of the debate, both sides seem to agree on one point: the issue is far from settled. Coleman, for his part, hopes that Attorney General Bondi will continue to pursue similar legal challenges in other states, signaling that the national conversation around immigration and higher education policy is likely to intensify in the months and years ahead.
As Kentucky awaits the final signature from the federal district judge, the state’s universities and students are bracing for a new era—one in which the rules of who pays what for a college education have shifted dramatically. Whether this change will deliver the intended results or spark further controversy remains to be seen, but for now, Kentucky’s decision stands as a stark reminder of the complex intersection of law, politics, and opportunity in America’s ongoing immigration debate.
