By Susan F. Martin, Co-chair, Study on Protection of Immigrant Rights, LWV of Washington 

On Thursday, August 27, 2026, the Justice Department sued Washington, Oregon, New Mexico and Arizona for seeking “to undermine federal law by placing aliens over citizens.” The League of Women Voters is strongly opposed to any effort to deny immigrants access to essential services, such as education, solely based on their immigration status.

The specific issue is in-state tuition and scholarships for undocumented students residing in these states. The administration had already sued 17 other states with similar policies. Despite the Justice Department’s claim, Washington state does not “seek to undermine federal law by placing aliens over citizens.” Rather, the state and organizations such as ours are seeking greater equity, not special preferences. 

Until recently, both red and blue states enacted legislation granting in-state tuition to residents, regardless of immigration status. Texas and California were the first to adopt the policy, passing legislation in 2001. 

Washington first enacted legislation allowing in-state tuition in 2003. Adjustments to the law were made in 2021, to make it clear that the requirements for in-state tuition and scholarships pertained to both citizens and immigrants alike. 

To receive in-state tuition, students must show they are residents of Washington and that they have not moved to the state for educational purposes only. They may show residency if they graduated from a high school in the state or lived in Washington for at least one year. The law also requires students to sign an affidavit that they are citizens or are seeking legal status. 

There are many reasons that in-state tuition and scholarships are beneficial not only to undocumented students but also to the broader community. 

Public schools and universities were created to educate residents and support the regional workforce and economy. These institutions charge lower tuition to in-state residents because state taxpayers have already subsidized the operations of these schools and universities through the income, property, and sales taxes they pay. Immigrants who have lived, worked, and paid taxes in our state should not be denied access to public education because of their status.

The Supreme Court held in the landmark 1982 decision, Plyler v. Doe↗️, that states cannot deny children a free public K-12 education based on their immigration status. While the court did not extend that right to higher education, it makes little sense to educate a child only to tell her that she is unable to continue learning because of her immigration status. 

Given Washington and the country’s need for expertise in so many areas, helping students — documented or not — to cover the costs of higher education is beneficial to all concerned

Education has long been in the hands of states and localities. The federal government has played a role in financing programs, but that role is now minimal. Yet, the administration in the other Washington seems determined to second guess those who know much better that denying education to anyone, let along to children who were brought up in our communities, is harmful and unnecessary. 

When asked about the suit, Governor Bob Ferguson was succinct in saying: “Washington state won’t be bullied into changing how we provide opportunities for young people in our state. We'll see them in court, and we expect to win." The League of Women Voters of Washington wishes him well in protecting all students in our State.