On July 11, 2025, the Department of Education issued a new interpretive rule entitled “Clarification of Federal Public Benefits under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act.” The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) generally limits “eligibility for ‘federal public benefits’ to U.S. citizens, permanent residents, and certain categories of qualified aliens.” The Department concluded that certain postsecondary education programs, “including adult education programs authorized under Title II of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014, [and] postsecondary career and technical education programs under the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006,” constitute “Federal public benefits under the PRWORA and thus are subject to PRWORA’s citizenship verification requirements.”

This new policy, although limited in scope, rests on a novel interpretation of federal law that may have significantly broader implications. In determining that undocumented students are not eligible for certain federal education benefits, the Department disclaimed a 1997 Department of Education “Dear Colleague” letter that had determined PRWORA did not restrict benefits provided by the Department of Education at the preschool, elementary, and secondary levels. Further, the new interpretive rule reads the Supreme Court’s decades-old decision in Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1981) to hold only that undocumented children are entitled to a “basic public education.” Thus, the interpretive rule concludes, undocumented adults are not entitled to receive any education benefits, and undocumented children are not eligible to receive “postsecondary” or “certain other education benefits” beyond “basic public education.” This would include, the interpretive rule explains, “dual enrollment and other similar early college programs that provide opportunities to earn college level credits while participating in a secondary education program.”

In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students

The new interpretive rule follows on the heels of other actions by the Administration limiting higher education benefits for undocumented students. On April 28, the President issued an executive order entitled “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens” which, among other things, directed the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to “identify and take appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State and local laws,” including those “that provide in-State higher education tuition” to noncitizens but not to out-of-state American citizens.

Approximately twenty-five states and the District of Columbia currently have laws or policies permitting students who have attended high school in the state for a certain number of years, or who have graduated from high school in the state, to pay the same tuition as in-state residents, regardless of their immigration status. Courts generally have concluded that such laws and policies do not violate federal law where eligibility for in-state tuition is based on secondary school attendance or other factors other than residency. See, e.g., Martinez v. Regents of the University of California, 50 Cal. 4th 1277 (S. Ct. Cal. 2010). But the Administration recently filed lawsuits against Texas and Minnesota seeking to invalidate those states’ laws permitting some undocumented students to pay in-state tuition. Texas immediately repealed its law, while Minnesota thus far appears to be defending its law in court. We expect the Administration to file lawsuits against more states that permit undocumented students to pay in-state tuition at their colleges and universities or that provide such students other education benefits.

The Department intends to send letters to Perkins V, Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, and Higher Education Act grantees discussing eligibility verification, and the Department may take enforcement actions against any grantee or subgrantee under PRWORA after August 9, 2025.

Immigration Enforcement Collides with Education

New immigration policies have underscored the continued collision of educational missions with immigration enforcement efforts, leading to complex questions affecting the day-to-day operations of educational institutions. For example, on President Trump’s first day in office, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) rescinded a 2021 “Protected Areas Memorandum,” which directed that enforcement actions should, to the “fullest extent possible,” be limited when they are conducted “in or near a location that would restrain people’s access to essential services or engagement in essential activities,” including schools. The new policy contains no such limitation. Instead, it specifies that “bright line rules” are not necessary and requires DHS officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection to use their discretion in deciding whether to commence enforcement action in formerly protected areas. In short, DHS enforcement actions are no longer subject to formal constraints, significantly increasing the possibility of enforcement actions at or near schools.

Educational institutions are also grappling with members of their communities facing immigration enforcement actions or entry restrictions, conditions on their access to federal funds tied to immigration priorities, and investigations of their immigration-related policies.

Conclusion

Although immigration has always been part of educational institutions’ planning to a certain extent, the speed and complexity of new government policy requires more robust monitoring for relevance and risk mitigation for affected institutions.