U.S. Justice Department sues Arkansas over 2019 in-state tuition law for DACA and other immigrants

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit Thursday asking a federal judge to strike down a 2019 Arkansas law that permits certain immigrants, including recipients of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, to receive in-state tuition at state colleges and universities.

The complaint names Arkansas among four jurisdictions — Arkansas, Hawaii, the District of Columbia and Utah — in a broader federal action the Justice Department said targets tuition measures in 25 states. The Arkansas law challenged in the suit was signed by then-Gov. Asa Hutchinson in 2019 as Act 844.

What the law does

Act 844 allows students who meet specific residency and educational requirements to pay in-state tuition rates. The law applies to:

• Individuals granted protection under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program (DACA);
• People with work permits, or whose parents hold work permits; and
• Immigrants from the Marshall Islands.

To qualify, students must have lived in Arkansas for at least three years and graduated from a public or private high school in the state. The original proposal applied more broadly to immigrants regardless of legal status but was narrowed before passage. The measure won bipartisan support in the majority-Republican Legislature.

Federal lawsuit and legal arguments

The Justice Department argues the Arkansas statute is unconstitutional and amounts to "blatant unequal treatment," asserting that federal immigration law preempts state efforts to confer immigration-related benefits. The suit follows a similar federal action in Kansas, where a judge this week struck down a 2004 law that permitted in-state tuition for some immigrants.

Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin's office said it was reviewing the complaint to determine next steps but indicated agreement with the federal position. In a statement, Griffin's spokesperson said:

"We agree with the U.S. Department of Justice that federal law preempts state law in this case, and that this state law should not be enforced."

Supporters say law keeps students and talent in state

Backers of Act 844 maintain it was a pragmatic step to retain students who have been educated in Arkansas and to support the state's workforce and economy. Supporters note that the law targets individuals who have established long-term ties to Arkansas through residence and high school attendance.

Former state representative and Democratic co-sponsor Megan Godfrey criticized the lawsuit's characterizations of the measure. She said the federal brief misrepresents the law's beneficiaries, arguing the statute was narrowed precisely to include only those with certain lawful presences or ties to the state. In her remarks, she called the federal description "disingenuous" for implying the law benefits people who lack lawful status.

Implications for students and institutions

If the federal lawsuit succeeds, Arkansas colleges and universities would no longer be able to offer in-state tuition under Act 844 to DACA recipients, those with work permits, or Marshallese nationals who meet the law's residency and graduation criteria. That change could affect tuition costs for current and prospective students and may influence enrollment decisions.

Public universities and community colleges that have factored these students into enrollment and revenue planning could face administrative adjustments if the statute is invalidated. Legal experts say the outcome also could shape how other states craft similar measures in the future.

National context

The Arkansas suit is part of a coordinated federal effort addressing state-level tuition measures across the country. By naming multiple jurisdictions and referencing other litigation such as the recent Kansas decision, the Justice Department is seeking to establish a legal precedent limiting state discretion where immigration intersects with access to public benefits.

Observers say the issue sits at the intersection of immigration policy, state autonomy and higher education finance. The final judicial outcome could clarify the extent to which states may carve out benefits for residents who lack full lawful permanent status but who have specific forms of lawful presence.

The Arkansas Justice Department filing sets the stage for a federal court review that could take months or longer. For now, Arkansas officials and advocates on both sides are preparing for litigation that could reshape access to higher education benefits for thousands of students across the state.

— Cole Beaumont, State Correspondent