As previously discussed, the lawsuit challenging Kansas' law that gives illegal aliens a better deal on college tuition than the deal that U.S. citizens receive was dismissed by a federal judge.

The WashTimes informs us that the American side is going to appeal in "Challenge dismissed on state tuition for illegals":

..."Standing" is the issue of whether someone is injured by the law. Kris W. Kobach, attorney for the plaintiffs and a law professor at the University of Missouri at Kansas City, said that certainly applies to out-of-state students, who pay about $8,000 more than in-state students in Kansas.

"My question is, if our plaintiffs really don't have standing, then it's unclear anyone would," he said...

"On some of the issues, he really just skimmed the surface because he wanted to dispose of the case on standing," [Michael Hethmon, an attorney for the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR)] said.

Kansas Attorney General Phill Kline, a Republican, defended the state's law in court. His communications director, Whitney E. Watson, did not return a call for comment yesterday...

But Peter D. Roos, who argued in the case on behalf of three anonymous illegal aliens, said the 1996 law was enacted six weeks after another law opened the door for states to offer benefits to illegal aliens. Congress did not overturn the provision in enacting the second law and therefore must have meant to allow Kansas and other states to offer in-state tuition benefits for illegal aliens, he said...

There doesn't appear to be much information available about Peter Roos. However, he appears to be the head of META, the Multicultural Education Training and Advocacy Center. They're identified in The Open-Borders Conspiracy as recipients of Ford Foundation money, but that's hardly a surprise. That article also mentions Plyler v. Doe, the U.S. Supreme Court decision that mandated free K-12 education for illegal aliens. Apparently Roos was involved in that case. And, the article mentions that that case was financed by the Mexican government.

FAIR offers "Day v. Sebelius: FAIR Decries Use of Procedural Obstacles to Keep Young Students from Having Their Day in Court":

Stein further asserted that the Day v. Sebelius decision continues a troubling trend within the Federal judiciary to frustrate the rights of U.S. Citizens to pursue remedies to vindicate injuries associated with the lack of U.S. immigration law enforcement. "In this case, the judge has ignored evidence of severe financial strain on the affected law abiding families, the plain language and intention of federal law and the brazen appearance of unfairness such an unjust result would seem to suggest," Stein concluded.