Arizona colleges can't give in-state tuition to young immigrants covered under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled Monday.
The court issued a brief decision order saying justices unanimously agreed with the Arizona Court of Appeals' ruling that said existing federal and state laws don't allow the Maricopa Community Colleges to grant in-state tuition rates for DACA recipients.
A full opinion further explaining the court's ruling will be released by May 14, the order states.
The court released the order Monday to allow Maricopa Community Colleges students and the state to have as much time as possible to plan for those affected by the ruling.
More than 2,000 DACA recipients, commonly referred to as "dreamers," currently attend community college or a state university in Arizona and pay in-state rates. The ruling will make DACA recipients pay much more to attend these schools, as out-of-state rates are about triple the cost of in-state tuition.
For example, in-state students at Arizona State University pay $10,640 this year, while non-resident students pay $26,470. Residents pay $86 per credit hour at the Maricopa Community Colleges, compared with $241 for non-residents.
Dreamers: Paying for college now 'almost impossible'
Korina Iribe, a DACA recipient and the director of advocacy at Undocumented Students for Education Equity, said the ruling will mean fewer students at Arizona's universities and community colleges.
Iribe said she finished her undergraduate degree in August, but was hoping to get a master’s degree. The ruling could mean she’s priced out of that option, she said.
“Unfortunately, today, a decision was made to block access to education for deserving Arizona students,” Iribe said.
Karina Ruiz, the president of the Arizona Dream Act Coalition, said the group knew the ruling was a possibility, adding that it will be a massive burden for young immigrants who want a college education.
In-state tuition rates were already financially difficult because DACA recipients can’t access federal or state financial aid, she said. Making DACA recipients pay non-resident rates means higher education is “going to be almost impossible,” Ruiz said.
Beyond the DACA recipients, the state as a whole will be affected, she said. The students could be the next generation of attorneys or doctors, she said.
“We are an asset. We contribute. For this state to not give us a chance to continue to do so, it’s wrong,” Ruiz said.
The Arizona Dream Act Coalition will start raising money immediately to fund emergency scholarships for next semester, Ruiz said.
“It’s a state of crisis.”
Is ASU affordable?
Attorney general not surprised by ruling
Monday's ruling came quickly — the court heard oral arguments on the issue one week ago.
The justices upheld a 2017 Arizona Court of Appeals ruling that said the state hasn't specifically granted in-state tuition to the dreamer population, so the community colleges couldn't give them in-state rates.
The ruling also applied to the state's three public universities, which began charging in-state tuition after a 2015 Maricopa County Superior Court decision that said it was legal because DACA recipients had legal immigration status in the country.
Community colleges and universities continued to charge the resident rates while the case was being considered by the high court.
Another wrinkle in the argument over lawful presence and how it affects in-state tuition for DACA recipients is Proposition 300, a 2006 ballot measure that requires people to have lawful immigration status to receive public benefits.
The measure specifically includes in-state tuition as a public benefit only for people with legal status.
In its three-page order today, the court said its decision doesn't close off any measures the state could take to extend in-state tuition to Arizona high school graduates who don't have legal immigration documents.
"Other states have done so," Arizona Supreme Court Chief Justice Scott Bales wrote, noting laws in Colorado, California and New Mexico.
But the ruling did note, briefly, that a potential Arizona law could be subject to the Voter Protection Act, since voters approved the 2006 ballot measure.
Follow Rachel Leingang on Twitter: @rachelleingang