On June 12, 2025, the state of Tennessee took a significant legal step by filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Education. This action aims to eliminate the traditional criteria that govern the federal designation and funding for Hispanic-serving institutions (HSIs). The lawsuit is supported by Students for Fair Admissions, a group known for its legal battles against prominent universities, which have led to landmark Supreme Court decisions regarding affirmative action in college admissions.
The core argument presented by the plaintiffs is that the current system of designating grants for HSIs is unconstitutional and discriminatory. HSIs are defined as colleges and universities where at least 25% of the student body identifies as Hispanic. Currently, around 600 institutions across the nation qualify for this federal designation, a standard established by Congress in the 1990s.
Tennessee’s higher education institutions, while serving a significant number of Hispanic and low-income students, are unable to access the federal grants intended for HSIs due to not meeting the enrollment criteria. This situation has created what the plaintiffs describe as an “unconstitutional dilemma”—these institutions are motivated to increase Hispanic enrollment to achieve HSI status, yet they cannot consider race in their admissions processes without violating the law.
The lawsuit emphasizes that financial assistance should be available to all students in need, irrespective of their racial or ethnic backgrounds. The plaintiffs argue that the denial of these funds adversely affects students of all races, highlighting the need for a more equitable approach to funding.
In their legal pursuit, the plaintiffs are seeking a declaratory judgment that the ethnicity-based requirements of the HSI program are unconstitutional. They also request a permanent injunction to prevent the Secretary of Education from enforcing these requirements when deciding on grant allocations for Tennessee’s higher education institutions.
This legal challenge underscores the ongoing debate surrounding educational equity and the role of race in funding and admissions policies. As the case unfolds, it may have far-reaching implications for how institutions across the country approach diversity and funding in higher education.