The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois ruled on July 24, 2026, in United States v. State of Illinois that the state's in-state tuition provisions, the RISE Act financial-aid program, and the Illinois DREAM Act are unconstitutional as applied to students not lawfully present in the United States. Judge David W. Dugan granted the federal government's cross-motion for summary judgment and denied the state's motion to dismiss, finding that the statutes violate the Supremacy Clause by conflicting with 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a).
The ruling lands in a timing gap. The legislature had already passed HB 5093, signed June 26, 2026, which amends tuition eligibility criteria, but those changes take effect only for the 2027-28 academic year for public universities and fall 2027 for community colleges. The court noted the new law was signed but not yet operative, and the injunction against the current statutes took effect August 7, 2026, leaving the 2026-27 academic year without a governing framework for undocumented students.
Scope of the ruling
The court declared unconstitutional the in-state tuition statutes codified at 110 ILCS 305/7e-5 and parallel provisions covering all nine public universities, the Acevedo Act community college provision at 110 ILCS 805/6-4a, the RISE Act at 110 ILCS 986, and the Illinois DREAM Act at 110 ILCS 947/67. The Illinois Board of Higher Education's FAQ, issued August 7, 2026, confirms the ruling applies to all community colleges and all public universities in the state, applies to all undocumented students regardless of enrollment date, and does not distinguish between undergraduate and graduate students.
The board also stated that the Illinois Student Assistance Commission cannot issue Monetary Award Program or other state scholarship and grant payments for undocumented students under the RISE Act for 2026-27, whether the student attends a public or private institution. The University of Illinois System posted a notice saying it is reviewing the decision and working with state officials and legal counsel to assess its implications.
Legal basis
The court's reasoning turned on § 1623(a), which provides that an alien not lawfully present in the United States is not eligible, on the basis of residence within a state, for any postsecondary education benefit unless a citizen or national of the United States is eligible for the same benefit without regard to residency. The court found this an express preemption provision and held that Illinois's statutes grant benefits on the basis of state residence without extending the identical benefit to citizens regardless of residency. The court also rejected the state's argument that the federal law unconstitutionally commandeers state legislatures or officials, finding instead that it regulates the eligibility of private individuals in an area of federal authority.
Precedent in the Fifth Circuit
The Illinois ruling draws on Fifth Circuit precedent. The court cited United States v. Texas, decided July 9, 2026, in which the Fifth Circuit held that § 1623(a) preempts state laws granting in-state tuition and other postsecondary benefits to aliens not lawfully present on the basis of state residence. It also relied on Young Conservatives of Texas Foundation v. Smatresk, a 2023 Fifth Circuit decision holding that § 1623(a) contains an express preemption clause. The Illinois court noted the Seventh Circuit had not directly addressed the issue and found the Fifth Circuit's reasoning persuasive.
What comes next
The court declined to delay enforcement beyond the two-week stay. At oral argument, the state's counsel said undocumented students have come to rely on the tuition preferences and that immediate injunctive relief would disrupt their financial plans for the 2026-27 school year. The court responded that it was not willing to take on a policy-making role by allowing the state to continue violating federal law.
The board's FAQ notes that the Alternative Application for state financial aid for 2027-28 will open October 1, 2026 under the new criteria established by HB 5093. The board also cautions that a challenge could occur at any time that could disrupt or even prevent payment of awards for 2027-28 or a future year, leaving uncertainty even after the new law takes effect.
The ruling is a district court decision, and the assessment of whether Illinois's provisions comply with federal law rests on the court's own legal analysis. It is subject to appeal to the Seventh Circuit. As of a law alert from Robbins Schwartz dated August 2026, no appeal had been filed.