⚖ Oral Arguments, with Context

The Fifth Circuit reviews attempts by students, advocacy groups, and a community college to join a lawsuit and defend two Texas in-state-tuition provisions. In June 2025, the United States sued Texas under Section 1623, which bars a state from giving a residence-based higher-education benefit to a person not lawfully present unless United States citizens can receive the same benefit regardless of residence. Texas agreed that day to a judgment blocking the provisions. The would-be intervenors will argue that the original parties had no real dispute, the rushed judgment denied affected students a fair chance to be heard, and their defenses were strong enough to proceed. The United States and Texas will argue that federal law displaces the provisions and that intervention was futile because the proposed defenses could not succeed. After this argument, a divided panel affirmed the denial of intervention and dismissed the other claims because the appellants never became parties. The majority held that Section 1623 preempts the provisions and rejected the Tenth Amendment defense. Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez dissented, concluding that the federal law unconstitutionally commands the state and that intervention was not futile.

United States v. State of Texas (No. 25-10898) — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, argued June 4, 2026.