State-funded services for undocumented noncitizens prohibition provision and MinnesotaCare and the North Star Promise scholarship program ineligibility for undocumented noncitizens provision
SF690 would prohibit undocumented noncitizens from receiving any service, payment, grant, loan, subsidy, or other financial aid or assistance funded by state tax revenue. The bill creates a new section in chapter 16A to establish this broad prohibition and makes it effective the day after final enactment. In practical terms, it would bar state-funded benefits and programs from being used to support undocumented individuals unless another law specifically provides otherwise.
The bill also amends the North Star Promise scholarship law to narrow eligibility by defining eligible students as residents who meet existing residency criteria and by clarifying what counts as “gift aid.” It specifies that state, institutional, and private aid generally count as gift aid unless they are loans or work-study, and it excludes aid specifically designated for other expenses such as books, supplies, child care, emergency assistance, food, and housing. This change would apply to scholarship awards beginning in the fall term of the 2025-2026 academic year.
In addition, SF690 amends MinnesotaCare eligibility to state explicitly that undocumented noncitizens are ineligible for MinnesotaCare. The bill retains coverage for citizens, nationals, and lawfully present noncitizens, and it preserves eligibility for certain lawfully present individuals who are otherwise ineligible for medical assistance due to immigration status and whose income is at or below 200 percent of federal poverty guidelines. It also continues to allow emergency medical assistance in limited circumstances.
Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate or vote history to gauge legislative sentiment from the available materials. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to reflect a restrictive approach to public benefits and higher-education aid for undocumented noncitizens, with the principal policy effect being the exclusion of that population from state-funded assistance programs.
The main points of contention likely center on immigration policy, access to public benefits, and the scope of state-funded aid. Supporters would likely view the bill as ensuring state resources are reserved for lawful residents and citizens, while opponents would likely argue it would reduce access to health coverage and educational opportunity for undocumented residents and could affect mixed-status families and students. The bill’s broad language about any state-tax-revenue-funded assistance may also raise questions about implementation and the reach of the prohibition across state programs.
The bill would add a new statutory prohibition in chapter 16A against undocumented noncitizens receiving state-tax-revenue-funded services or financial assistance, and it would amend MinnesotaCare and North Star Promise eligibility statutes to exclude undocumented noncitizens. It would also revise the definition of gift aid for the North Star Promise scholarship program, affecting how state, institutional, and private aid is counted for scholarship purposes. These changes would directly affect undocumented residents, scholarship applicants, and administrators of state benefit and higher-education aid programs.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no formal legislative sentiment available from hearings or roll calls. From the bill’s text and caption, the measure appears to be introduced in a restrictive policy posture toward undocumented noncitizens, suggesting support from lawmakers favoring tighter eligibility rules for public benefits and opposition from those concerned about access to health care and education. The absence of recorded debate prevents a more precise assessment of member sentiment.
The likely core dispute is whether undocumented noncitizens should be barred from state-funded services, MinnesotaCare, and the North Star Promise scholarship program. Supporters would likely argue that state funds should be limited to lawful residents and citizens, while opponents would likely contend that the bill is overly broad, harms vulnerable families and students, and could undermine public health and educational access. The bill’s sweeping prohibition on any state-tax-revenue-funded assistance may also be contentious because of uncertainty about how broadly it would apply across agencies and programs.