Civil rights groups sue to intervene after repeal of Texas Dream Act

After the Austin Community College District's Board of Trustees announced their intent to join a lawsuit intervening in the repeal of the Texas Dream Act, several local civil rights groups filed a motion Tuesday night to "defend the constitutionality" of the 25-year-old Texas Dream Act, a law providing thousands of students without legal status who meet certain requirements to obtain in-state tuition.

The National Immigration Law Center, the Texas Civil Rights Project, Democracy Forward, the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas and a private law firm in Dallas seek to contest the U.S. Department of Justice suit against the 2001 Texas Dream Act, after state Attorney General Ken Paxton declined to defend the law. The parties request an "emergency ruling" allowing them to intervene as defendants in Texas's place, and to prevent "irreparable harm" against students and institutions who face steep economic burdens if the ruling stopping the law's enforcement holds.

On June 4, two days after the end of the state legislative session, where a bill that would have repealed the Dream Act failed to make it to the Senate floor, the federal government sued over the law, saying it was unconstitutional because it provides special benefits to students without legal status. Paxton joined the lawsuit led by the President Donald Trump-led Justice Department, and asked a judge to enjoin the law from being enforced, which a federal North Texas judge did that day.

ACC trustees are the first elected body from a state institution to seek to contest the state's action, a rare stance against political powers at a time many higher education institutions remain silent. The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a separate motion to intervene this month on behalf of students who would lose access to education without in-state rates.

The swift manner of the repeal prompted the trustees to seek legal intervention, which the civil rights groups will carry out for the college pro bono.

"The apparent abuse of the litigation process should alarm us all," said Efrén C. Olivares, legal director at the National Immigration Law Center, in a news release. "If the Trump administration and state officials can use this judicial process to end a decades-old, democratically adopted law, there’s nothing to stop them from using similar tactics to attack other policies and civil protections. This is a fight to protect access to higher education for all Texans, but also a fight to uphold one of the basic tenets of our democracy."

Trustees also told the American-Statesman that they hope to eventually reverse the judge's decision and restore the enforcement of the Dream Act, which has brought economic benefit to the community and the college, and to gain clarity on the ruling. They also hope to tell a judge the crucial role the law plays in helping ACC meet workforce needs and improve the region's economy, which they did not have the opportunity to do before the judge enjoined institutions from enforcing it.

Republican Gov. Rick Perry signed the bill into law in 2001 with bipartisan support, allowing thousands of students — who are held to higher requirements to achieve residency than U.S. citizens, including signing an affidavit asserting their plan to pursue citizenship at the first opportunity — to access higher education opportunities on their long journey to citizenship.

"A change so drastic and sudden is unprecedented, and will cause many students to withdraw from ACC, not to mention those who will be deterred from applying," the suit states. "If not allowed to intervene, ACC will face irreparable harm to its finances, campus community, and mission."

More than 20,000 students signed affidavits to secure in-state tuition in 2021, the civil rights groups said, accounting for 1.5% of students at colleges and universities in Texas that year. With a bachelor's degrees, immigrants make an estimated salary twice as high than without and contribute more than $2,000 more in taxes on average, accounting for $461 million in the State's economy that would be lost without this law, the groups said in a news release.

"Without the Texas Dream Act, many of these students will be forced to forgo their education, and schools across Texas will lose millions of dollars of funding," the lawsuit states. The tuition cut from students who would no longer be able to attend without the dream act will cause ACC to lose "hundreds of thousands of dollars" from expected tuition, which students most often pay out of pocket as they are ineligible for federal financial aid. This will lead to "significant reductions in its enrollment and retention," the suit argues.

The judge's ruling also places a high "administrative burden" on institutions like ACC, the lawsuit states, to quickly comply without clear guidance. A letter from Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Commissioner Wynn Rosser on June 18 asked institutions to identify and reclassify students without legal status by fall 2025 so they are paying non-resident tuition, which at ACC can be four times as high, the school states.

The civil rights groups are also suing on behalf of La Unión del Pueblo Entero and a graduate student, Oscar Silva, whose education was made possible by the Dream Act. Silva has been able to achieve multiple degrees through the act and wants others to have the same opportunities.

"The Texas Dream Act means everything to me," Silva said in a news release. "This law has made my education possible. Without it, college would’ve been out of reach for me as a first-generation college student."