ICE Sued Over Policy Allowing Immigration Actions on Campus

A collection of public school districts and university faculty members are challenging Department of Homeland Security policies that allow Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to conduct detainment activities on or near public education campuses.

The complaint, filed Wednesday in the U.S. District Court of Minnesota, comes in the wake of a surge of ICE presence in Minneapolis and Saint Paul and the killing of two American protesters, Alex Pretti and Renee Good. As the threat of immigration enforcement grows, the plaintiffs argue that ICE action at public K-12 schools and on college campuses is not only a violation of the rights of immigrants but also a disruption to the lives of U.S. citizens. 

Historically, federal regulations deemed public education institutions, churches and other religiously affiliated spaces as “sensitive locations” and therefore they were off limits to immigration enforcement teams, except in rare pre-approved circumstances. But on Jan. 21, 2025, President Trump revoked that policy, opening the flood gates to increased ICE activity in all spaces.

That change has endangered students of all backgrounds, driven away families from classrooms and obstructed access to education, said Democracy Forward, the nonprofit law firm that is representing plaintiffs. The firm specifically pointed to overall attendance rates among schools in the Twin Cities, saying in a news release that “some districts [are] reporting attendance declines of nearly one-third within weeks.”

“This is unlawful, reckless, and legally and morally indefensible,” Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said in a news release. “We are in court because children should never have to look over their shoulders at school or worry that their loved ones could be taken away at the schoolhouse gate, and because the government cannot undermine decades of settled policy without regard for students, educators, or the law.”

The firm, which has led many lawsuits against the Trump administration in its first year, is hopeful that the court will rule in its favor once again as it has already seen success in a similar case concerning religious houses of worship.