The Justice Department has filed a federal lawsuit seeking to invalidate Maryland laws and regulations that allow qualifying undocumented students to receive in-state college tuition and apply for state-funded financial assistance. The complaint names the State of Maryland, the Maryland Higher Education Commission and the University System of Maryland Board of Regents as defendants and asks a judge to permanently prohibit them from enforcing the challenged provisions.

The case was filed Thursday, July 16, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland. The department announced the action as part of a widening national effort against state policies that extend reduced tuition rates or state education benefits to undocumented residents. According to the department, Maryland is the 13th state targeted in litigation over such programs.

At the center of the dispute is Section 15-106.8 of Maryland’s Education Article, commonly known as the Maryland Dream Act. The statute includes undocumented immigrants within a group of students who may qualify for an exemption from nonresident tuition at public institutions. It does not automatically give every undocumented student the lower rate; applicants must satisfy a series of conditions demonstrating long-term educational and financial connections to Maryland.

Those conditions include attending and graduating from a Maryland secondary school, enrolling at a Maryland public college within six years of graduation or receiving an equivalent diploma, and documenting that the student or a parent or guardian filed Maryland income-tax returns for the required period. Students who are not permanent residents must also promise to seek permanent residency after becoming eligible, and those subject to Selective Service requirements must document compliance.

A Maryland law that took effect July 1 reduced the relevant tax-filing period from three years to two years. The Justice Department cited that amendment in its complaint as an expansion of eligibility. Maryland supporters have characterized the requirements as evidence that recipients are established members of the state’s schools, workforce and tax base rather than students who moved to Maryland primarily to obtain lower tuition.

The federal government argues that the program is preempted by a 1996 immigration statute, 8 U.S.C. Section 1623. That provision says a person who is not lawfully present may not receive a postsecondary education benefit based on state residence unless U.S. citizens can receive an equivalent benefit without regard to their state of residence. The complaint contends that Maryland’s school-attendance, graduation, tax and address requirements make the tuition exemption residence-based while out-of-state U.S. citizens generally continue to pay nonresident rates.

The filing illustrates the financial stakes by comparing resident and nonresident charges listed for the 2026-27 academic year. At the University of Maryland, College Park, the complaint places resident undergraduate tuition and fees at approximately $12,835, compared with about $44,086 for nonresidents. It cites a resident charge of roughly $9,894 at Bowie State University, compared with $21,047 for out-of-state students, and approximately $7,524 versus $14,726 at Coppin State University.

The Justice Department also cited Maryland Higher Education Commission figures showing that, in fall 2024, 496 undocumented students received in-state tuition across 15 community colleges and 309 received it at nine public four-year institutions. The complaint says the difference between resident and nonresident rates saved participating students approximately $8.96 million from summer 2024 through spring 2025. Those figures are allegations presented by the federal government and have not been tested through litigation.

The suit reaches beyond tuition. Maryland permits eligible undocumented students who cannot complete the federal Free Application for Federal Student Aid to use the state’s MHEC One App. That process can make qualified students eligible for certain need-based, legislative, transfer, career-focused and public-service grants or scholarships, provided they also satisfy each program’s academic, financial and enrollment requirements.

The complaint argues that linking state aid eligibility to the challenged tuition classification violates the same federal restriction. It identifies programs including the Howard P. Rawlings Educational Excellence Awards, Maryland Senatorial and Delegate scholarships, the Community College Promise Scholarship and several occupation- or service-related awards. The government is asking the court to invalidate relevant statutes and regulations only to the extent that they extend benefits to undocumented students under the contested eligibility rules.

The Justice Department separately challenges a Maryland Higher Education Commission regulation concerning domicile classifications at community colleges. The government says the rule is invalid both because it conflicts with the federal restriction on residence-based postsecondary benefits and because federal law requires states to affirmatively authorize certain public benefits through legislation rather than through an administrative regulation.

Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown signaled that the state will contest the action. In a statement, Brown said the lawsuit targets students who grew up and graduated from school in Maryland and are pursuing opportunities for themselves, their families and their communities. His office said it was reviewing the complaint and would respond in court, adding that Maryland would “keep fighting for the young people in our state and their futures.”

Maryland had not filed its substantive legal response as of Friday. The state may argue that its tuition exemption rests on educational history and other eligibility conditions rather than residence alone, an approach that has been used in designing similar policies elsewhere. The Justice Department’s complaint rejects that distinction, asserting that the totality of Maryland’s requirements effectively makes state residence the basis for the benefit.

The litigation does not by itself cancel anyone’s current tuition classification or financial-aid award. The government is seeking declaratory judgments and permanent injunctions, meaning a judge must first consider the statutory and constitutional arguments. Questions about how any eventual order would apply to students already enrolled, aid already awarded or future academic terms would depend on the scope and timing of a court ruling.

The case is part of a broader confrontation over state authority, immigration policy and higher education access. The Justice Department says comparable challenges have already produced favorable orders in Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma and Nebraska, while cases involving policies in states including California, Illinois, Minnesota, New Jersey, Massachusetts and Rhode Island remain pending. Outcomes may differ because the wording and administration of each state’s program are not identical.

For Maryland colleges, the immediate task is monitoring the case while continuing to administer existing law. Students relying on the Dream Act or the MHEC One App will need clear guidance if a judge issues an injunction or if the state changes its procedures during litigation. Until then, the lawsuit creates significant uncertainty but does not constitute a final determination that Maryland’s tuition and financial-aid policies are unlawful.