NEW ORLEANS – A Latino civil rights group has requested en banc review by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit of a panel decision upholding a ruling that denied immigrant students in Texas the opportunity to intervene in a case where Texas and the federal government agreed to strike down a Texas law that allowed the students to pay the same tuition as most students at public schools and universities.
MALDEF (Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund) is asking for the rehearing by all of the judges in the Fifth Circuit on behalf of Students for Affordable Tuition (SAT), an association of students who are forced to pay higher tuition because of their immigration status.
In July, a three-judge panel upheld the district court ruling barring MALDEF and the students from intervening by a 2-1 vote. In its request for rehearing by the full 17-judge court, MALDEF argues that the panel majority wrongly decided that SAT’s intervention was futile. They also argue that the panel majority failed to address constitutional concerns raised by SAT, such as the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and the right to petition under the First Amendment. Attorneys conclude by asking the full Court to reverse the denial of SAT’s motion to intervene and vacate the consent decree.
“The panel majority misapplied the law and ignored the strongest arguments presented, including the violation of the Tenth Amendment in Congress’ attempt to tell states how to address the tuition of citizens of other states,” said Thomas Saenz, MALDEF president and general counsel. “The Fifth Circuit should not allow the miscarriage of justice that saw the Texas Dream Act wiped out the very same afternoon the Trump administration lawsuit was filed.”
The request to intervene challenges a 2025 consent judgment entered between the state of Texas and the federal government to end the Texas Dream Act. Passed in 2001, the act allowed eligible immigrants attending public universities and colleges in Texas to pay the same tuition as any other student who meets requirements. In the original motion to intervene, attorneys argue that the federal and state governments used a “contrived legal challenge” to circumvent the normal legal process, which prevented sufficient notice or consideration before taking away the benefit so many students depended on. In August 2025, a district judge rejected the students’ motion to intervene in the case. A month later, MALDEF appealed to the Fifth Circuit.
“By affirming, the panel majority adopted the district court’s error as its own. Our clients were denied their day in court, and that denial is now the law of the Fifth Circuit unless the full Court reverses,” said MALDEF Attorney Fernando Nuñez. “The issues at stake are too important to leave to a divided panel.”
MALDEF has also sought to intervene in tuition cases on behalf of students in Kansas, Kentucky, and Oklahoma; the organization is working to protect access to affordable higher education for students who have lived, studied, and contributed to their communities for most of their lives.
Read the request HERE.
Read more about this case and MALDEF’s work to defend tuition equity HERE.