TOPEKA, Kan. (KCTV) – The U.S. Department of Justice is suing Kansas over a law giving undocumented immigrants in-state college tuition rates.

But Kansas Governor Laura Kelly is not going down without a fight. She says she filed a motion to intervene in the case the same day.

Kelly argues that Attorney General Kris Kobach is refusing to defend a law that Kansans – and their elected representatives – chose to keep.

What the Federal Government Is Arguing

The DOJ’s complaint, filed Wednesday, June 24, targets Kansas Statute 76-731a – a law signed by then-Governor Kathleen Sebelius on May 20, 2004, that took effect July 1 of that year.

The law allows certain undocumented immigrants who attend Kansas high schools for at least three years and graduate, or earn a GED in Kansas, to qualify for in-state tuition at Kansas colleges and universities.

The law provides that the undocumented immigrant file an affidavit stating they have applied or will apply to legalize their immigration status.

Federal prosecutors argue that the arrangement violates federal law – specifically, part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.

The federal law bars states from offering in-state tuition to undocumented immigrants unless that same benefit is available to all U.S. citizens, regardless of where they live.

The DOJ says Kansas is giving undocumented immigrants a tuition break that out-of-state American citizens cannot get.

The Tuition Gap

For the 2025-2026 school year, the Kansas Board of Regents revealed that in-state tuition per semester at Kansas universities ranged from around $2,450 at Fort Hays State to $5,650 at the University of Kansas.

The Regents noted that out-of-state students paid dramatically more – from $6,930 at Emporia State to $15,000 at KU per semester.

Between 2010 and 2021 alone, the complaint states that at least 5,140 undocumented immigrants used the Kansas law to enroll at state postsecondary institutions.

The Unusual Twist: AG Kobach Agreed to Settle – Immediately

Hours after the DOJ filed its complaint, justice officials indicated that AG Kris Kobach jointly filed a motion for entry of consent judgment, asking the court to:

• Declare the law as preempted by federal law and therefore invalid
• Issue a permanent injunction barring Kansas and all of its officers, employees and agents from enforcing the law

Both sides said they agreed they would each bear their own legal costs.

The speed of the agreement – filed the same day as the lawsuit – is at the center of Governor Kelly’s objection.

Kobach had already telegraphed his position: in Attorney General Opinion 2026-5, issued Feb. 10, 202, he concluded the Kansas law was preempted by federal law and invalid, though it remained in effect at the time.

Governor Kelly Steps In

Kelly wasted no time. She said her office filed a motion to intervene the same day, arguing Kobach’s willingness to immediately agree to a consent judgment amounts to a “backdoor” attempt to legislate through courts rather than through the democratic process.

“Without any substantive briefing, this is a collaborative attempt by DOJ and Attorney General Kobach to backdoor-legislate through non-adversarial litigation,” the motion states.

Kelly’s legal team argues she has both the constitutional authority and the legal obligation to step in.

Under the Kansas Constitution, the governor is “responsible for the enforcement of the laws of this state.”

Her attorneys also cited K.S.A. 75-108, a state statute that allows the governor to hire outside counsel when the attorney general is “interested adversely to the state” – which, they argue, Kobach is.

The Legislative Context

The fight over this law did not start with the federal lawsuit.

During the 2026 Kansas legislative session, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 254, which would have repealed the law in question. Kelly vetoed it.

The Legislature did not override her veto – meaning the law remained intact through the democratic process just months before the DOJ sued.

Kelly’s motion argues that allowing a consent judgment without full legal briefing “disregards the democratic process by which the Kansas state law was enacted.”

What Kelly Is Saying

In a statement, Kelly framed the issue around the students affected – many of whom were brought to the U.S. as children:

What Federal Officials Are Saying

DOJ officials framed the lawsuit as part of a broader national effort to enforce federal immigration law and protect American citizens from what they call preferential treatment for undocumented immigrants.

Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward pointed to Kansas’s history with the law, arguing the state has long favored undocumented immigrants over American citizens in higher education.

“For decades, the Kansas legislature gave preferential treatment to illegal aliens over American citizens,” Woodward said. “We encourage all States to follow the commonsense correction of Attorney General Kobach, ceasing any policy that rewards illegal entry into our nation with educational opportunities not available to U.S. citizens.”

The DOJ noted that the Kansas lawsuit is part of a pattern of legal wins it claims it has secured in similar cases across the country.

Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate of the Justice Department’s Civil Division said the department has no plans to stop.

“Kansas’s unconstitutional and un-American laws should never have been passed in the first place and are prohibited by federal law,” Shumate added. “The Department of Justice has won on this exact issue in Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Nebraska, and we will take this fight to any states that fail to put American citizens first.”

The swift agreement between the DOJ and Kobach drew praise from federal prosecutors in Kansas.

U.S. Attorney Ryan Kriegshauser for the District of Kansas called it a model of cooperation between state and federal leaders.

“This proposed consent decree demonstrates the quality of partnership between Kansas state leaders and the Department of Justice for the shared purpose of ensuring that federal tax dollars are not used to discriminate against Kansas’s lawful citizens,” Kriegshauser concluded.

The Broader National Picture

The Kansas lawsuit is the 10th in a series of DOJ actions targeting state in-state tuition laws for undocumented immigrants.

The department said it has already secured favorable court orders in Texas, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Nebraska. Lawsuits against Illinois, Minnesota, Virginia, California and New Jersey remain pending.

However, the legal landscape is not entirely settled.

A federal judge in Minnesota ruled in March 2026 that the same federal statute does not preempt Minnesota’s similar in-state tuition law, finding that Minnesota’s law does not determine eligibility on the basis of residency in the same way.

The DOJ has appealed that ruling to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals – the same circuit that covers Kansas.

What Happens Next

The consent judgment proposed by the DOJ and Kobach still requires court approval.

Governor Kelly’s motion to intervene, if granted, would give her office the ability to argue against the consent judgment and force full legal briefing on the merits of the case.

The court has not yet ruled on Kelly’s motion.

If the judge allows her to intervene, the case could become a full legal battle – pitting the federal government and the state’s own attorney general against the governor’s office over a law that has been on the books for more than 20 years.