Hispanic-Serving College Program Is Discriminatory, Lawsuit Argues

A legal battle has emerged over a federal initiative that provides substantial financial assistance to colleges with a significant Hispanic student population. The State of Tennessee and Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA)—the organization known for its successful lawsuit that led to the Supreme Court ruling against race-conscious admissions policies at Harvard—have filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this funding program.

At the center of the controversy is the federal government’s support for Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs)—colleges or universities where at least 25 percent of the student population identifies as Hispanic. These institutions receive special grants from the Department of Education to enhance academic resources, student support services, and facilities. But the plaintiffs argue that this practice amounts to ethnic discrimination, violating both state and federal laws as well as the U.S. Constitution.

In the lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee, the plaintiffs argue that federal funding directed exclusively at HSIs unfairly excludes other institutions—including those in Tennessee—that also serve Hispanic and low-income students but fall short of the 25 percent threshold.

“All public colleges and universities in Tennessee serve low-income and Hispanic students to some extent,” the lawsuit states. “But none qualify for these federal grants simply because their Hispanic enrollment doesn’t reach the arbitrary 25 percent mark.”

The complaint further claims that the program does not serve the broader interests of the public but rather privileges one ethnic group at the expense of others. “This is not about promoting the general welfare,” the lawsuit declares. “This is about promoting the welfare of a specific ethnicity, to the detriment of others—including Hispanic students attending schools that are ineligible because of the rigid quota system.”

This case is one in a series of recent legal challenges targeting programs that consider race or ethnicity in their eligibility criteria. Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision effectively dismantled affirmative action in college admissions—following litigation initiated by Students for Fair Admissions—there has been a surge in lawsuits seeking to dismantle race-conscious practices in higher education and beyond.

A related organization, the American Alliance for Equal Rights, has also launched a wave of lawsuits, challenging what it sees as racial or ethnic favoritism across various sectors, including nonprofit organizations, law firms, and venture capital funds. More than ten such cases have been filed to date, all grounded in similar legal arguments of equal protection and non-discrimination.

At the heart of the current lawsuit is a federal program aimed at increasing educational opportunities for Hispanic and low-income students. Funds awarded to HSIs can be used for a variety of purposes, such as purchasing laboratory equipment, expanding libraries, improving academic advising and tutoring services, and strengthening counseling programs.

In 2024 alone, the U.S. Department of Education allocated approximately $229 million to support HSIs. Of that amount, $28 million was distributed among 49 institutions, including Riverside Community College in California and Nassau Community College in New York.

The origins of the HSI designation trace back to concerns raised in past decades that Latino students were heavily concentrated in underfunded colleges and universities, where academic outcomes and graduation rates were comparatively low. A 2021 report from the Postsecondary National Policy Institute—a research group focused on higher education policy—highlighted the systemic underinvestment in institutions with high Latino enrollment and advocated for targeted federal support to address the gap.

Emmanual Guillory, the Senior Director of Government Relations at the American Council on Education, defended the program as a critical tool for promoting educational equity. “These schools often serve large numbers of low-income students, regardless of race or ethnicity,” Guillory said. “They’re also frequently under-resourced and in need of support to offer quality education.”

He also emphasized the bipartisan roots of the HSI program. “Historically, both Republican and Democratic administrations have backed this initiative. It’s worth noting that even the Trump administration never proposed eliminating this program.”

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, however, sees the matter differently. In a public statement, Skrmetti criticized the grant structure as unconstitutional. “Any federal funding scheme that discriminates based on ethnicity isn’t just morally wrong—it goes against the foundational principles of our Constitution,” he said.

The lawsuit names the U.S. Department of Education and its Secretary, Linda McMahon, as defendants. While it is unclear how vigorously the federal government will defend the program, observers note that the Trump administration is philosophically aligned with many of the plaintiffs’ arguments. Since the Supreme Court’s affirmative action ruling, Trump-aligned policymakers have increasingly questioned and curtailed diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across both higher education and public K-12 systems.

Still, states with a high concentration of HSIs, such as California, New York, and Illinois, could potentially intervene in the case to defend the program and prevent it from being dismantled.

The Department of Education has not released an official comment in response to the lawsuit.

Notably, the plaintiffs’ complaint clarifies that their legal challenge is specific to the HSI program and does not extend to historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). Funding for HBCUs, the lawsuit notes, is based on their historical mission and legacy, not on the current percentage of Black student enrollment.

Edward Blum, the conservative activist behind Students for Fair Admissions and the new lawsuit, emphasized this distinction. “The HSI program differs significantly from HBCU funding,” he explained. “While HBCUs receive support due to their unique historical roles in American higher education, HSI grants are based solely on current enrollment figures, making them subject to accusations of racial preference.”

This nuanced legal approach reflects a growing trend in conservative legal strategy: targeting any policy or program that uses present-day racial demographics as a basis for eligibility. Such lawsuits aim to build on the momentum created by the Supreme Court’s ruling against affirmative action and to push back against broader race-conscious public policy efforts.

The case against the HSI program could have far-reaching consequences for other forms of targeted federal support. If the court rules in favor of the plaintiffs, it could open the door to additional lawsuits challenging funding, scholarships, and internships that prioritize or limit eligibility based on race or ethnicity—even when such programs aim to address structural inequalities.

For now, the future of the Hispanic-Serving Institutions program hangs in the balance. Advocates argue that the program plays a vital role in lifting under-resourced institutions and expanding access to higher education for disadvantaged communities. Opponents insist it is an unconstitutional overreach that prioritizes ethnic identity over equal opportunity.

As the legal process unfolds, the outcome may not only determine the fate of one federal grant program but also reshape the broader landscape of race-conscious educational policies in the United States.