Education Minnesota’s lawsuit against the Dept. of Homeland Security: What we’re seeking and what’s next
Written by David Aron, Education Minnesota General Counsel
On Feb. 4, Education Minnesota, along with the Fridley and Duluth Public Schools, filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court seeking to block the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) from conducting immigration enforcement activity on or near public schools, arguing that recent federal actions have disrupted education, endangered students and driven families away from classrooms.
A policy change with devastating impacts on Minnesota educators and students The lawsuit challenges a shift in federal immigration policy that removed long-standing protections limiting enforcement activity in “sensitive locations,” such as schools, hospitals and places of worship, which had been in place since 1993 but was rescinded in a one-page memorandum issued on the current administration’s first day in office. Since that change in federal policy, federal agents have carried out enforcement operations in and around school zones across Minnesota, triggering fear among students and families and forcing districts to close schools, cancel activities or shift to remote learning.
In a press conference announcing the lawsuit, Education Minnesota President Monica Byron stated, “Students can’t learn, and educators can’t teach, when there are armed, masked federal agents stationed within view of classroom windows, sometimes for days on end.” Attendance in several Minnesota school districts dropped sharply in early January amid Operation Metro Surge, with some districts reporting attendance declines of nearly one-third within weeks. In some districts, large portions of multilingual student populations were absent, while others reported attendance falling below half. Education Minnesota and the other plaintiffs in the lawsuit argue that the threat of enforcement near schools has created a chilling effect that extends beyond immigrant families, affecting entire school communities, undermining access to education and interfering with the ability of our members to perform their jobs safely and without fear.
Challenging “arbitrary and capricious” actions by the federal government Both legal claims in the lawsuit allege violations of a federal law called the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”). The first count of the complaint alleges that the abrupt repeal of the Sensitive Locations Policy was arbitrary and capricious in violation of the APA because the Administration did not appear to examine any data or provide a reasoned explanation for repealing a policy that had been in effect for over 30 years, including during the first Trump administration. The second count alleges that the repeal of the sensitive locations policy violated procedural requirements of the APA, which require the government to provide prior notice and an opportunity for the public and individuals affected by proposed changes to weigh in with written comments before they take effect. Neither of these occurred in the administration’s rush to repeal the Sensitive Locations Policy on its very first day in office.
Education Minnesota and the two plaintiffs in this case are seeking a court order that would declare the January 2025 rescission of the sensitive locations policy invalid, reinstate the policy, and permanently enjoin the administration from rescinding it in the future without following the requirements in the APA. June Hoidal, of Zimmerman Reed LLP, and one of the attorneys representing Education Minnesota in this case, stated, “When arbitrary federal action interferes with public education, courts have the authority to step in and prevent further harm. That intervention is necessary here.”
Emergency motion seeking an immediate halt in ICE activity on or near schools On Feb. 23, Education Minnesota, Fridley Public Schools and Duluth Public Schools filed a motion for emergency relief, asking the court to enjoin DHS from repealing the sensitive locations policy temporarily as the case proceeds. Even though the Administration has announced the end of Operation Metro Surge, the plaintiffs’ motion alleges that the harm and uncertainty flowing from the repeal of the sensitive locations policy continues.
Fridley Public Schools alone has had to un-enroll at least 20 students due to prolonged absences tied to fear of immigration enforcement, likely costing the district thousands of dollars in state funding. Both Fridley and Duluth have diverted staff time, expanded remote learning, and spent significant funds to respond to enforcement activity and reassure families. DHS failed to justify its sudden policy reversal, ignored reliance interests built on the policy after having it in place for over three decades, and disregarded the predictable harm to children’s access to education.
A hearing on the emergency motion is scheduled for April 8, 2026. The court will hopefully rule within several weeks as to whether to grant the motion and temporarily block the administration from further enforcement activity on or near schools, or to deny the motion. Even if the preliminary motion is denied, there is still the possibility of a court finding that the department acted unlawfully in repealing the sensitive locations policy and ordering that it be reinstated.
What’s at stake Even though Operation Metro Surge has officially ended, there remain as many as 500 active ICE and Border Patrol Agents in Minnesota. There remains widespread confusion and fear among all education stakeholders—students, parents, educators, and administrators—about the circumstances under which immigration enforcement activity may occur on or near school grounds, and how school districts should respond.
This session, the Minnesota Legislature has already heard several bills regulating school responses to immigration enforcement activities, and protection for sensitive locations are a topic of debate in Congress as well. Given all of this confusion and uncertainty, a decision in this case could have an impact well beyond Minnesota. Education Minnesota, along with Fridley and Duluth Public Schools have been fortunate to be represented entirely pro bono by the law firms of Zimmerman Reed LLP, Nilan Johnson Lewis PA, The Law Office of Kevin C. Riach, and Democracy Forward, a national legal organization focused on defending the rule of law. The following quote from one of our attorneys aptly sums up what this case reveals about the importance of schools and educators in turbulent times, and why Education Minnesota felt compelled to be part of this lawsuit: “In the midst of uncertainty, Minnesota’s educators are showing up as heroes—offering academic and emotional support, and a sense of belonging that every child deserves. But let’s be clear: they should never have to shoulder this burden,” said Kathleen Curtis with Nilan Johnson Lewis. “Immigration enforcement operations should not be happening near schools, and we are asking the Court to restore the policy that has long ensured these spaces remain safe for students.”
