A federal judge on Friday struck down Illinois laws providing in-state tuition and financial aid to undocumented immigrants, a move that further entrenches the economic precarity of a vulnerable working class. U.S. District Judge Stephen McGlynn, a Trump appointee, sided with the Justice Department, declaring Illinois' in-state tuition policies, the RISE Act, and the Illinois DREAM Act "unconstitutional and invalid" as they apply to undocumented immigrants.
This ruling permanently blocks Illinois from enforcing these laws, though McGlynn delayed the order for 14 days to allow for an appeal. U.S. Attorney Steven Weinhoeft stated, "Illinois sought to incentivize illegal immigration on the taxpayer's dime by treating illegal aliens better than U.S. citizens living in other states, in clear violation of federal law." He added that the ruling "stops the State from putting illegal aliens ahead of American citizens." This rhetoric serves to divide the working class, pitting segments against each other while capital benefits from a more precarious labor pool.
The State's Hand in Wage Suppression
The Justice Department initiated the lawsuit against Illinois and several colleges in September 2025. It argued that offering in-state tuition and financial aid to undocumented immigrants without extending the same benefits to all U.S. citizens, regardless of residence, violated federal law. Judge McGlynn granted the federal government's motion for summary judgment, denying Illinois' attempt to dismiss the case. The invalidation of the RISE Act, which provided state financial aid, and the Illinois DREAM Act, which established scholarship opportunities, directly impacts the ability of undocumented workers to access education and improve their economic standing.
Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., praised the decision, writing on X, "This is a win for Illinois taxpayers and American students who were shut out while Pritzker prioritized foreigners in our country illegally." Such statements reinforce the narrative that pits workers against each other based on immigration status, obscuring the systemic forces that depress wages for all.
This Illinois decision is part of a broader, coordinated effort by the federal government. The Justice Department has secured wins or settlements in similar cases involving Texas, Kentucky, Oklahoma, and Nebraska. Nebraska, for instance, agreed to end in-state tuition benefits for undocumented immigrants as part of a settlement. Lawsuits remain pending against Minnesota, Virginia, California, New Jersey, Kansas, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maryland.
Dividing the Working Class
Just this same year, the Justice Department filed another lawsuit against Colorado, challenging its ASSET Act and related policies. These policies provide lower tuition rates and state financial aid to undocumented immigrants, benefits denied to out-of-state U.S. citizens. Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward asserted, "For three decades, Congress has made clear that Colorado cannot give education benefits to illegal aliens that it does not give to all American citizens." He continued, "By granting illegal aliens in-state tuition, Colorado is not only violating federal law but subsidizing education for illegal aliens at taxpayers' expense." Woodward concluded, "Our litigation efforts will not cease until we have fulfilled President Trump's promise that illegal aliens will not obtain preferential treatment over our nation's own citizens." This federal strategy actively works to maintain a segmented labor force, where a lack of educational opportunity keeps a portion of the working class in lower-wage, less secure positions, benefiting employers who rely on cheap labor.
Limits of Liberal Reform
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker's office did not immediately comment on the ruling. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis's office, however, defended its state's policies. A Polis spokesperson called the federal government's actions "absurd," stating, "In Colorado, we are expanding access to education to provide students with the skills to get good-paying jobs and doubling down on strategies to save students money." These state-level efforts, while presented as expanding opportunity, are ultimately limited reforms that do not challenge the fundamental mechanisms of surplus extraction or the federal government's role in enforcing a system of wage suppression. They are easily overturned by judicial action, demonstrating the fragility of such concessions within the existing legal framework.