#United States #Tennessee #Students for Fair Admissions #HSI funding

Overview of the Federal Lawsuit Against HSI Program

On June 11, 2025, a significant legal battle commenced when Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) and the State of Tennessee officially filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the federal government's Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSI) program. This program, established under Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act, is designed to allocate federal funds to colleges and universities with at least 25% Hispanic student enrollment. However, according to the plaintiffs, this demographic threshold not only serves as a racial gatekeeper but also violates the U.S. Constitution.

The HSI Program: What's at Stake?

The lawsuit was lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee. It argues that the U.S. Department of Education and Secretary Linda McMahon are improperly enforcing a program that discriminates on the basis of ethnicity. SFFA asserts that while all public higher education institutions in Tennessee serve Hispanic and low-income students, none are eligible for HSI funding because they fall short of the arbitrary 25% Hispanic enrollment criterion.

This legal action asserts that the HSI program engages in unconstitutional racial balancing that exceeds the powers granted to Congress. The crux of the complaint lies in the claim that this requirement acts as a strict racial hurdle, preventing numerous institutions from accessing millions of dollars in federal support. Notably, institutions like East Tennessee State University, the University of Memphis, and Middle Tennessee State University are highlighted as potential grant recipients under more neutral criteria, such as low educational spending and high low-income enrollment, but are entirely disqualified due to their Hispanic enrollment being below the desired threshold.

The Broader Implications of the Lawsuit

The plaintiffs emphasize the harms inflicted by the HSI program, stating that faculty and students are denied essential educational resources, including modern laboratories and expanded tutoring sessions, which are typically supported by such grants. Many members affiliated with SFFA are educators at Tennessee universities who could actively compete for HSI funding if that funding framework was more equitable.

Furthermore, the State of Tennessee argues that the HSI program creates a legal bind for its universities. They face a dilemma: either they must introduce dubious racial balancing in their admissions processes to meet federal criteria or forfeit significant federal assistance. This predicament grows more complex in light of Tennessee's recently enacted law, which prohibits race-based preferences in its public education system. As a result, state institutions find themselves walking a tightrope tight between violating federal law and state mandates.

Seeking Justice: The Verdict Sought

The lawsuit seeks a declaratory judgment deeming the racial requirements of the HSI program unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against the Department of Education's use of racial or ethnic criteria in determining grant eligibility. Edward Blum, who is at the helm of SFFA, states that this lawsuit aims not to strip opportunities from any racial or ethnic demographic but to extend equal opportunities to all. According to Blum, “The Supreme Court has affirmed in the case of SFFA v. Harvard that such racial eligibility practices are fundamentally unconstitutional.”

As the proceedings move forward, this legal case will not only address the legitimacy of the HSI program but may also set crucial precedents regarding racial criteria in education funding across the United States. The outcomes may reshape how federal grants and resources are disbursed in higher education, ensuring that every institution has equal access to educational opportunities without racial gatekeeping.

This litigation represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over racial equity in education and challenges the balance of funding against the backdrop of federal authority—setting the stage for potentially game-changing implications on how educational institutions operate and are funded.