How do residency, high school attendance, and graduation requirements affect undocumented students’ eligibility for in-state tuition in California, Texas, and Florida?

1. California: education‑based routes that have been defended as inclusive

California’s AB 540/related Dream Act framework lets students who attended California high schools for a specified period and graduated — including undocumented students and DACA recipients — receive in‑state tuition and in many cases state financial aid ^{[1] [2] [10]}. The practical test commonly cited is attending at least three years of a California high school, adult school, or community college and obtaining a diploma, GED, associate degree, or completing transfer requirements ^[2]. Advocates and state systems treat this as an education‑based path that does not require lawful immigration status to qualify ^{[1] [10]}. The U.S. Department of Justice has recently sued California challenging those benefits as unlawful under federal immigration law, explicitly targeting the rule that exempts high‑school‑attending graduates from out‑of‑state rates ^{[11] [12]}.

2. Texas: multiple statutory pathways, but domicile and duration matter

Texas law provides several paths to resident tuition classification: traditional domicile (12 months before enrollment), statute‑based routes tied to high‑school attendance and residence, and other special categories; some of those paths do not require lawful immigration status, but the rules are complex and documentary ^{[4] [13]}. One commonly used route (from state materials and guidance) counts students who graduated from a Texas high school and who have resided in Texas for specified periods (examples cite 36 months before graduation plus 12 months before census date in some institutional policies) and often requires an affidavit promising to apply for permanent residence when eligible ^{[5] [14]}. Universities warn that domicile and “clear and convincing” evidence are required, institutions may request documentation, and certain visa categories are excluded from domiciliary options ^{[6] [15]}. Texas has faced litigation and differing judicial outcomes on Dreamer‑type policies in recent years; state law once broadly enabled in‑state tuition for some undocumented students but enforcement and court rulings have at times narrowed access ^{[5] [13]}.

3. Florida: 12‑month legal residency rule and immigration‑status limits

Florida’s default rule requires the student or the student’s parent to have been a Florida resident, as defined for tuition purposes, for at least 12 consecutive months before the term start — and residency must be a bona fide domicile, not merely attending school in Florida ^{[7] [16]}. The state guidance and many public universities explicitly state that to qualify you must be a U.S. citizen, permanent resident, or a legal alien granted indefinite stay; attending a Florida high school alone is insufficient to establish residency for tuition purposes ^{[8] [9]}. Institutions require at least two dated pieces of documentation and treat legal status as part of review, while limited statutory exceptions exist but are narrowly applied ^{[17] [18]}. Independent reporting and fact sheets show Florida repealed or narrowed some tuition equity measures in recent years, and by 2025 the policy landscape left Florida less accessible to undocumented students than California or Texas ^{[19] [20]}.

4. How high‑school attendance, graduation, and residency windows change practical eligibility

High‑school attendance/graduation rules can substitute for long domicile proofs in states that enacted “tuition equity” laws: California explicitly uses three years of attendance plus graduation as a trigger ^[2], and Texas has statutory paths tied to multi‑year Texas attendance/residence and affidavits ^[5]. By contrast, Florida’s emphasis on an uninterrupted 12‑month legal domicile (plus legal immigration status) means that mere high‑school attendance — even graduation — is often not enough to secure in‑state rates ^{[7] [21]}. Where states accept education‑based criteria, institutions still require transcripts, affidavits, and supporting documents; states and systems vary on whether undocumented applicants must sign pledges to seek lawful status when eligible ^{[1] [13]}.

5. Legal and political context: disputes, litigation and shifting rules

California’s inclusive approach is under immediate federal legal attack: the Department of Justice filed a complaint challenging state laws that provide in‑state tuition and aid to undocumented individuals, arguing federal immigration law forbids such benefits ^{[12] [11]}. Texas has been the site of prior litigation that altered enforcement of its Dream‑era provisions and saw injunctions in some cases ^{[3] [5]}. Florida’s legislative framework and administrative practice have generally limited access; reporting and legal summaries note that Florida’s tuition equity law was repealed or narrowed in recent years, reinforcing status‑based limits ^{[19] [8]}. Advocates frame education‑based eligibility as workforce and equity policy, while opponents frame it as unlawful preferential treatment — a dispute now playing out in courts and executive action ^{[22] [12]}.

Limitations: available sources detail statutory rules and recent litigation through Nov. 2025 but do not provide every campus’s current operational forms or the outcomes of the new federal suit; campus practice can vary and institutions may impose additional documentary requirements ^{[2] [6] [23]}.