Immigration Enforcement and Schools One Year After the “Sensitive Locations” Shift
Nearly one year after the Trump Administration rescinded federal immigration enforcement guidance treating schools as “sensitive locations,” a single image thrust the issue into the national spotlight. A 5-year-old child in Minnesota was detained alongside his father by immigration officials while traveling home from school. A photo of the child wearing a hat with blue bunny-ears and carrying a Spider-Man backpack quickly went viral and became emblematic of the concerns and misconceptions many families associate with immigration enforcement near schools.
Can the Federal Government Conduct Immigration Enforcement at Schools?
From the very beginning of the recission on Jan. 20, 2025, media coverage and public discussions were influenced by several crucial misconceptions, which shaped how the situation was understood and addressed. Perhaps the most persistent misconception was that the rescinded guidance from the Biden Administration categorically prohibited immigration enforcement at schools. It did not.
The Biden-era policy discouraged enforcement at sensitive locations but stopped short of imposing a blanket ban. Immigration agents retained the ability to conduct enforcement actions at such locations if they obtained headquarters-level approval or were operating under exigent circumstances, such as threats to life or hot pursuit.
These subtleties were frequently overlooked in initial public discussions, which often portrayed the rescinding of the previous guidance as the removal of fundamental safeguards for students and schools.
In February 2025, the Denver Public Schools system filed a lawsuit seeking injunctive relief restoring the Biden-era guidance, arguing that the rescission created immediate and tangible risks for school operations.
In opposing the request for injunctive relief, the Trump Administration maintained that the revised enforcement posture was not materially different in practice from prior policy. That position essentially functioned as a tacit acknowledgment that the practical realities for schools remained largely unchanged. The court ultimately declined to grant the requested injunction.
Any remaining uncertainty was further reduced in the months that followed. In particular, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security publicly stated that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was not targeting schools and that enforcement actions at school locations were expected to be rare. That statement, issued in response to mounting public concern and active litigation, reinforced the federal government’s litigation position and signaled that, at least from a federal policy standpoint, schools were not intended to become focal points of enforcement activity.
Where Are We Now?
The federal government’s approach in litigation, along with its subsequent public statements, signaled that enforcement practices would remain largely consistent. However, this continuity should not be interpreted as an absence of risk. The incident in Minnesota highlights why concerns persist: even when enforcement actions do not take place directly on school campuses, activity near school communities can still have significant operational impacts.
School leaders nationwide continue to report challenges such as shifts in attendance, increased anxiety among parents, and ongoing uncertainty about proper responses if federal officials are seen near school property.
Over the past year, the situation has been defined not by a single policy change but by the interaction among federal communications, court cases, media reporting, and community responses. While litigation arguments and agency statements provide some insight into enforcement priorities, they do not establish absolute protection or predict future developments.
As a result, school systems should approach immigration-related preparedness as an ongoing operational need. This means keeping response protocols up to date, ensuring that front-line staff are familiar with escalation procedures, and regularly reviewing policies in consultation with legal counsel. In a context where perception can be just as influential as policy, consistent and proactive preparedness remains the most effective strategy.
How Should Schools Prepare?
Over the past year, the relationship between immigration enforcement and K‑12 education have proven to be unpredictable. Policies can change, public perceptions do not always align with legal realities, and high‑profile enforcement actions occurring near school activities have periodically renewed national attention to this relationship even in the absence of enforcement actions occurring on school campuses themselves.
Since the federal government’s immigration enforcement policy likely will not change, it is important that school systems continue to prioritize ongoing readiness for immigration enforcement actions rather than relying on any single policy shift or court decision. In a previous article, we outlined the fundamental obligations owed to students and practical steps school leaders can take if immigration officials appear on or near campus.
Administrators should continue to revisit those fundamentals, ensure staff are aware of the practical steps that should be taken, and establish clear communication plans in case immigration issues arise within their communities. As the landscape continues to change, maintaining an informed and proactive approach is crucial.
Please contact Courtney T. Joiner, Brandon Davis, Rebecca Sha, Ashley Heilprin or any member of the Phelps Immigration and Education teams if you have questions or need advice or guidance.