A Colorado law granting in-state tuition benefits to undocumented immigrants is facing a federal civil rights complaint, with critics arguing the policy discriminates against American citizens from other states.
The Equal Protection Project (EPP), a civil rights watchdog organization, has formally requested that the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division investigate Colorado’s Advancing Students for a Stronger Tomorrow (ASSET) program. The group contends the law violates federal statutes by offering benefits to undocumented students that are not equally available to all U.S. citizens.
Under the ASSET program, students without lawful immigration status may qualify for in-state tuition and state financial aid if they attended a Colorado high school for at least one year and lived in the state for 12 consecutive months prior to enrolling in a public college or university.
The financial implications are significant. For example, at Colorado State University, 18 credit hours in a semester cost $6,762.13 for in-state residents compared to $18,277.41 for non-residents — a difference of more than $11,000.
William Jacobson, president and founder of the Equal Protection Project, argues that policies like ASSET effectively provide taxpayer-funded benefits to individuals in the country unlawfully while denying those same benefits to American citizens who reside outside the state.
“These in-state tuition break laws are simply a variation on a theme which privileges people who are in the country illegally over U.S. citizens,” Jacobson said, emphasizing that the complaint focuses strictly on benefit disparities rather than whether undocumented students may attend college.
The group’s complaint cites federal law — specifically a provision of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 — which prohibits states from offering postsecondary education benefits to undocumented immigrants unless the same benefit is available to all U.S. citizens regardless of state residency.
Jacobson’s organization also pointed to recent Justice Department lawsuits challenging similar policies in California and Virginia. He argues Colorado’s law may be even more permissive, noting that Virginia typically requires two years of in-state high school attendance and California requires three years plus graduation, while Colorado requires only one year of high school attendance.
The Equal Protection Project has identified 19 states with some form of tuition benefit for undocumented students and says it plans to review each policy individually to determine whether further DOJ complaints are warranted.
Colorado officials have not publicly responded to the latest complaint. Supporters of in-state tuition laws argue that such policies promote educational access for long-term state residents and strengthen state economies by expanding workforce opportunities. Opponents maintain that federal law draws a clear boundary that states must not cross.
