Two Nebraska nonprofit organizations moved to intervene in federal court last week, seeking to block a proposed consent judgment that would eliminate in-state tuition eligibility for thousands of students at Nebraska public colleges and universities.
The case, United States v. Nebraska, stems from a lawsuit filed April 21 by the U.S. Department of Justice challenging Nebraska statutes that allow qualifying noncitizens — including those who graduated from Nebraska high schools or have pending immigration petitions — to pay in-state tuition rates. What makes the case unusual is that Nebraska’s attorney general chose not to defend the state’s own laws, instead joining with the federal government to seek the consent judgment on the same day the complaint was filed.
Orel Alliance, an Omaha-based nonprofit that assists Ukrainian refugee families, and True Potential Scholarship, a program that covers 100 percent of tuition and fees for students who are ineligible for federal financial aid, filed their motion to intervene on May 7. They are represented by Democracy Forward and Nebraska Appleseed.
The financial stakes are significant. At the University of Nebraska at Omaha, in-state tuition runs $9,768 per year, while out-of-state tuition costs $26,092 — meaning the proposed consent judgment could effectively triple costs for affected students. True Potential has committed to funding 27 students for the 2026-2027 academic year, and the organization says it would be unable to honor those commitments if those students lose their in-state eligibility. Orel Alliance, meanwhile, is helping 23 Ukrainian immigrants apply to UNO for the coming school year, roughly half of whom hold Temporary Protected Status or have pending immigration applications.
“The members of our Ukrainian refugee community came to the USA fleeing war, and — like many other refugee and immigrant community members — pay state and federal taxes,” the Orel Alliance Board of Directors said in a statement. “By eliminating their right to pay in-state tuition rates, Nebraska would effectively deny them access to higher education and the advancement of their English studies and professional training.”
The intervenors’ brief characterizes the lawsuit as “collusive,” noting that Nebraska Governor Jim Pillen publicly described the consent judgment as resulting from the “combined efforts of President Trump’s Department of Justice and Attorney General Hilgers” and called it “the latest example of the tremendous partnership between the State of Nebraska and the Trump Administration.” The organizations argue the arrangement bypasses the democratic process, pointing out that the Nebraska legislature had twice rejected bills that would have modified in-state tuition eligibility just before the suit was filed.
This is the ninth federal lawsuit challenging state in-state tuition laws, and the fourth in which a state has declined to defend its own statutes. By contrast, several other states facing similar challenges — including Minnesota, Virginia, Illinois, and California — have actively defended their laws. A federal court in Minnesota upheld that state’s in-state tuition law in March.
“Many students have built their lives in Nebraska and relied on longstanding state law to pursue higher education,” said Paul Wolfson, Senior Legal Advisor at Democracy Forward. “The court should not allow a backroom agreement between federal and state officials to strip away opportunity without hearing from those whose futures are on the line.”
Nebraska’s in-state tuition provisions for qualifying noncitizens have been on the books since 2006. The intervenors argue the court should not invalidate nearly two decades of democratically enacted policy without allowing those most affected to be heard.
