The U.S. Department of Justice filed its complaint against UD on Oct. 1. It argues that the university’s policy lets some students without lawful immigration status receive in-state rates while denying the same benefit to U.S. citizens who come from other states. The department describes that as unequal treatment.

UD said it is reviewing the complaint and declined to comment further while the case is pending.

The legal challenge comes as the Trump administration pursues cases against state policies that allow some students without lawful immigration status to pay in-state tuition. The dispute could shape how colleges set residency rules and whether students who depend on those rates can afford to enroll.

For Diana Sanroman-Espinosa, a UD graduate student, the difference in tuition and financial aid was stark. Her family paid more than $10,000 out of pocket for her first semester, when she attended as a recipient of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA. After she obtained lawful permanent residency, she became eligible for financial aid and scholarships, and her out-of-pocket cost fell to about $200 per semester.

Sanroman-Espinosa came to the United States from Mexico when she was 2 and completed her schooling in the U.S. She said she did not know her immigration status would complicate college applications until a Social Security number error arose during a meeting with her high school counselor. Her teachers helped her navigate the process and accompanied her to university offices.

She was initially told she would be classified as an international student, she said. She later learned about UD’s First State Promise program, which allowed her to pay the in-state tuition rate. But the program did not provide the financial aid she needed, and DACA recipients generally cannot submit the federal FAFSA form or receive federal student aid based on that status alone.

Sanroman-Espinosa said her parents used savings to cover the first semester, and her mother sold her car. After Sanroman-Espinosa obtained permanent residency, she was able to submit the FAFSA and qualify for merit-based scholarships.

“I stayed the same student from the fall semester to the spring semester,” she said. “The only thing that changed was my legal status.”

Dominique Baker, a University of Delaware associate professor of education and public policy, said residency rules cover more than immigration status. Colleges may set conditions that allow different groups to qualify for in-state rates; Baker cited military families as one example, noting that children of active-duty service members may qualify in Virginia when their parents pay taxes there.

Baker said such policies can help public universities serve their communities by making higher education more affordable. If access to in-state rates is restricted, some students may delay college, choose another path or not enroll, she said.

The lower tuition rate also does not erase other financial barriers. Students without lawful immigration status generally are ineligible for federal Pell Grants and federal student loans based on that status, while eligibility for state aid and other scholarships varies.

Sanroman-Espinosa said losing access to in-state tuition could leave some students facing an untenable financial burden. “It makes me sad,” she said, adding that students could be forced to conclude their education “ends here.”

The university has not publicly detailed its response to the complaint. The case’s outcome could affect students who rely on residency policies to qualify for lower tuition, while Sanroman-Espinosa said she hopes students facing uncertainty continue pursuing their education.