By: JC Bowman, contributing education editor
The Trump administration’s recent decision to withdraw support for the Hispanic-Serving Institution (HSI) program has ignited a significant legal and educational debate.
This federal program, established in 1992, provides funding to colleges that serve a substantial population of Hispanic students, defined as institutions where at least 25% of undergraduates are Hispanic. The program was designed to address historical funding disparities and support Latino students, who face lower college enrollment and graduation rates compared to their non-Hispanic peers.
The decision comes in the wake of a lawsuit filed in June 2025 by the state of Tennessee and the group Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA). The plaintiffs argue that the 25% threshold constitutes an unconstitutional quota, depriving other institutions of critical funding based on ethnic composition.
Supporters contend that this criterion violates the equal protection clause, particularly following the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling that prohibited race-based affirmative action in college admissions. This case could end up back at the Supreme Court.
The U.S. Department of Education‘s agreement with the plaintiffs suggests a shift in policy, aligning with the argument that the HSI program’s eligibility requirements contradict the recent Supreme Court decision. Tennessee’s Attorney General, Jonathan Skrmetti, has emphasized that public colleges in the state miss out on millions in federal support due to this threshold, framing the issue as one of fairness in resource allocation.
Supporters of the HSI program, including the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), have intervened in the lawsuit, asserting that the program is crucial for addressing systemic inequities faced by institutions that serve a significant proportion of Latino undergraduates. HACU points out that HSIs play a vital role in supporting not just Hispanic students but all students through enhanced programs and services, including infrastructure improvements and academic support.
Critics of the lawsuit argue that the program does not incentivize racial balancing but rather reflects the demographic realities of the student population in specific regions. They contend that the HSI designation does not limit access or funding to non-Hispanic students but aims to strengthen institutions that have historically been underfunded.
The outcome of the lawsuit could have far-reaching implications for the HSI program and potentially affect other minority-serving institution initiatives. Legal expert Steve Gill notes that the case is being heard in a conservative federal court in Knoxville, Tennessee, which may influence the ruling’s direction.
If the plaintiffs prevail, it could lead to the dismantling of the HSI program or significant changes to its funding criteria, possibly redirecting resources to broader initiatives like Pell Grants. However, such a shift raises concerns about diminishing support for institutions that specifically cater to the growing Latino population, potentially exacerbating existing disparities in higher education funding.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the future of the HSI program will serve as a pivotal point in the ongoing dialogue about equity, funding, and access in American higher education.
JC Bowman is the executive director of Professional Educators of Tennessee and contributing education editor for TriStar Daily.
