"Sham Lawsuit" Eliminates Oklahoma Law Protecting Migrant Students
Judge Ronald White blessed courtroom farce that killed in-state tuition for undocumented students.
A FEDERAL JUDGE HAS ALLOWED A CONTROVERSIAL MANEUVER by the Trump administration and an Oklahoma official to eliminate a state law that granted in-state college tuition to certain undocumented students. This action, described by legal experts as a "sham lawsuit," bypassed the traditional democratic process, raising significant concerns about the integrity of the judicial system and its impact on immigrant rights.
MIGRANT INSIDER is sponsored by
Ronald White: Trump’s Judicial Rubber Stamp
Instead of engaging in the difficult and public work of repealing a state law through the legislature, the Trump Justice Department and the Oklahoma Attorney General's Office—both aligned against the tuition benefit—collaborated on a pre-determined outcome. They filed a lawsuit not as adversaries, but as "partners," agreeing from the outset to strike down the two-decade-old Oklahoma law.
This coordinated effort was evident when the complaint was filed, immediately followed by a "Joint Motion for Entry of Consent Judgment." This move telegraphed their intent: to use the court as a rubber stamp for their shared agenda rather than a forum for genuine legal dispute.
MIGRANT INSIDER is sponsored by
Public Outcry Ignored
The non-profit legal advocacy group Public Justice attempted to intervene, arguing that the court lacked the fundamental authority, or jurisdiction, to hear such a manufactured case. They highlighted that Article III of the U.S. Constitution limits federal courts to adjudicating "actual controversies arising between adverse litigants"—a principle clearly absent in this "friendly suit." Public Justice warned that allowing such a proceeding was "a threat to the democratic process."
Despite these critical warnings, U.S. District Judge Ronald White, a George W. Bush appointee, rejected Public Justice's request to file an amicus curiae ("friend of the court") brief, offering no explanation. Shortly thereafter, Judge White approved the "consent judgment," permanently blocking the enforcement of the Oklahoma law. This decision was made without considering any adversarial arguments, effectively silencing those who sought to uphold the democratically enacted statute.
Targeting Migrant Student Tuition Access
At the heart of this legal sidestep was a state law that provided in-state tuition rates for certain undocumented individuals attending college in Oklahoma. For years, this law helped make higher education more accessible to a vulnerable population. The Trump administration and Oklahoma's Attorney General, both known for their stringent anti-immigrant policies, saw this law as a target. Their novel use of the court system allowed them to dismantle this provision without facing the public debate, legislative hurdles, or potential political backlash that a conventional repeal effort would entail.
MY TAKE: This case echoes a similar incident involving U.S. District Judge Reed O’Connor in Texas, indicating a disturbing trend where federal courts are being used as instruments for political agendas rather than impartial arbiters of justice.
As one Public Justice lawyer noted, even conservative judges traditionally champion strict adherence to jurisdictional rules, making these recent actions particularly alarming.
The concern is clear: without genuine adversarial arguments, courts risk making incorrect decisions and, more importantly, abusing their discretion by deciding issues without hearing both sides.
Read more at Law Dork
If you’ve made it this far, you care. Help me keep pressing the powerful for answers and exposing what they’d rather you never see—subscribe or donate to keep Migrant Insider going.
Why is this controversial? People who break the law and skip the line ahead of legal immigrants are not only NOT immigrants by definition, but they broke the law. It is completely bizarre that our society will totally ignore incarcerated Americans for lesser crimes, and raise no fuss whatsoever when a green card holder breaks the laws and gets deported, yet people who willingly, knowingly, and deliberately cross (DACA excluded) the border are regarded as victims and anyone trying to penalize them in our law enforcement are demonized, even threatened for doing their jobs! You want fairness? You want justice? Start getting a grip on what that actually means and for whom. Billions are poor, living in unsafe conditions. Are we supposed to look the way for all of them at the expense of what is fair and just for those here? And get your terms straight. An immigrant is someone who APPLIES. This matters. There must be boundaries. It’s not bigots who made up the majority of those who wanted immigration reform. It was actual naturalized immigrants, native-born, American Indians, etc. Enough with this reverse bigotry.