Russell Coleman’s Kentucky Tuition Lawsuit: Ruling and Appeal

Kentucky Attorney General Russell Coleman did not file the Kentucky tuition lawsuit himself. He publicly backed the U.S. Department of Justice’s June 2025 challenge to the state regulation that let undocumented Kentucky high school graduates pay in-state tuition, and he pressured the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education to drop the policy rather than defend it. The council agreed to settle, and on March 31, 2026 a federal judge signed a consent decree permanently ending the benefit. The ruling is now on appeal before the Sixth Circuit.

The Policy Coleman Targeted

The rule at issue is 13 KAR 2:045, a regulation of the Kentucky Council on Postsecondary Education. Under state law, the CPE is the independent body with sole authority to set residency requirements for tuition. The provision covering undocumented graduates had been in place since at least 2002 and operated for more than twenty years without a successful legal challenge.¹

The regulation worked simply. An undocumented student who had graduated from a Kentucky high school could get the in-state rate on that basis alone. A U.S. citizen moving in from another state had to satisfy more detailed residency criteria to get the same rate. That gap became the heart of the federal government’s legal attack.²

What Coleman Actually Did

Coleman, a Republican elected in November 2023, was not a plaintiff. He backed the DOJ’s position from the sideline and used his office to push the CPE toward surrender.³

On July 10, 2025, Coleman sent a letter to CPE President Aaron Thompson calling the defense of the regulation “a losing fight” and asking the council to withdraw the rule rather than litigate. He argued the CPE lacked authority to grant what amounted to residency status to undocumented students and that the regulation was “preempted by federal law.” He pointed to Texas as the template: that state had agreed to end its own in-state tuition program on the same day the DOJ sued.⁴⁵

In the letter, Coleman emphasized the citizen-versus-noncitizen gap in the regulation. “Simply put, the Council’s regulation provides undocumented aliens a benefit unavailable to students lawfully present in other States,” he wrote.²

The DOJ Lawsuit He Backed

The federal complaint was filed June 17, 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, case number 3:25-cv-00028-GFVT. It named the Council on Postsecondary Education, Governor Andy Beshear, and Kentucky Education Commissioner Robbie Fletcher as defendants. Beshear was dismissed from the case on August 22, 2025.⁶⁷

The DOJ’s legal theory rested on 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a), a provision of the 1996 Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. That statute says a person not lawfully present in the United States cannot be eligible for a postsecondary education benefit based on state residence unless every U.S. citizen or national is eligible for the same benefit regardless of where they live. The DOJ argued Kentucky’s regulation violated that provision and was preempted under the Supremacy Clause.⁶

U.S. Attorney General Pamela Bondi tied the suit to the Trump administration’s immigration agenda. “No state can be allowed to treat Americans like second-class citizens in their own country by offering financial benefits to illegal aliens,” Bondi said.³

How the Case Ended

The CPE did not fight. On August 14, 2025, the DOJ and the council filed a joint motion for entry of a consent judgment in which the CPE acknowledged its regulation was preempted and agreed to terminate it. Coleman and CPE President Thompson both declined to comment while the agreement awaited court approval.⁸

With the state unwilling to defend its own rule, the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund moved to intervene on behalf of Kentucky Students for Affordable Tuition, an association of undocumented college students. Judge Gregory F. Van Tatenhove granted the motion on November 19, 2025, finding KSAT’s members had a protectable interest because they would face sharply higher tuition if the DOJ prevailed, and that no existing party was representing those interests given the CPE’s agreement to settle. MALDEF called the proposed consent decree “collusive.”⁹¹

Judge Van Tatenhove signed the consent decree on March 31, 2026. The order declared that 13 KAR 2:045 conflicted with the 1996 federal statute and the Supremacy Clause, and it permanently enjoined the CPE from enforcing the regulation. The judge noted that states retain the right to extend benefits to unauthorized immigrants but must do so “through law and not agency-based regulations.” Kentucky’s benefit had been created by CPE rule, not by a statute from the legislature.¹⁰¹¹

What the Ruling Means for Students

According to MALDEF’s filings, the ruling could raise tuition for affected students by up to 152 percent. At some institutions, per-credit-hour costs would climb from $446 to $897. MALDEF’s attorneys said the increase could force students to withdraw or abandon their degrees.¹²

The exact number of students affected has not been publicly reported. Kentucky is home to an estimated 52,944 undocumented immigrants, though only a fraction of that population would have been enrolled in public colleges and universities.¹³

The Appeal

MALDEF filed a notice of appeal on April 3, 2026, taking the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit under docket 26-5303. The group argues the consent decree lacks a supportable legal basis and that Kentucky has the sovereign authority to set its own tuition policies. MALDEF staff attorney Olivia Alden said the group hopes the Sixth Circuit will recognize the state’s authority to make all high school graduates eligible for regular tuition rates.¹⁴

MALDEF’s opening brief is due July 10, 2026, with the government’s response due August 10, 2026. No oral argument date has been set.¹⁵

Kentucky Is One of Several States

The Kentucky case is part of a broader federal campaign. The DOJ sued Texas on June 4, 2025, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton agreed to a consent judgment ending in-state tuition for undocumented students the same day.¹⁶¹⁷¹⁸ All of the cases rely on the same preemption theory under 8 U.S.C. § 1623(a). MALDEF has sought to intervene in the Texas and Oklahoma cases as well.¹

1
MALDEF. Judge Allows Immigrant Students to Intervene to Defend Kentucky Tuition Policy
2
Kentucky Office of the Attorney General. Letter From Attorney General Coleman to CPE President Thompson
3
LPM News. DOJ Sues Kentucky Over In-State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrants
4
LPM News. Kentucky AG Urges End of In-State Tuition for Undocumented Immigrants
5
Jessamine Journal. AG Asks CPE to Change Policy Giving Illegal Immigrants In-State Tuition
6
U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Files Complaint Challenging Kentucky Regulation Providing Reduced In-State Tuition
7
MALDEF. Order Granting Motion to Intervene
8
WKYUFM. Kentucky Higher Education Group Reaches Proposed Settlement With DOJ
9
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. United States v. Beshear
10
AOL News. Illegal Immigrants No Longer Eligible for In-State Tuition in Kentucky
11
FOX 56 News. U.S. Court Blocks In-State Tuition for Noncitizen Students in Kentucky
12
MALDEF. MALDEF Appeals Ruling in Kentucky Case Barring Undocumented Students From Regular Tuition
13
Higher Ed Immigration Portal. Kentucky
14
Kentucky Lantern. Latino Civil Rights Group Will Appeal Order Blocking KY In-State Tuition for Immigrants
15
Higher Ed Immigration Portal. In-State Tuition Litigation Updates
16
U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department and Texas Reach Agreement to End In-State Tuition for Illegal Aliens
17
U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Files Complaint Challenging Minnesota Laws Providing In-State Tuition
18
U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Department Files Complaint Challenging Oklahoma Law Providing In-State Tuition