The Fridley and Duluth Public School Districts filed a federal lawsuit Wednesday against the Department of Homeland Security and immigration officials, challenging a policy reversal that has allowed enforcement actions in and around schools for the first time in three decades.
The 33-page complaint, filed in Minnesota federal court, targets what the plaintiffs describe as an illegal policy change that has transformed schools from protected spaces into zones of fear for families across the state. The lawsuit comes amid DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's 'Operation Metro Surge,' which deployed 3,000 agents to the Twin Cities metropolitan area in what officials called the agency's largest operation ever.
For 30 years, federal immigration agencies maintained a strict policy avoiding enforcement actions in sensitive locations including schools, hospitals, and places of worship except in extreme circumstances. This longstanding protection was designed to ensure that children could access education and families could seek essential services without fear of immigration consequences.
The policy reversal occurred in 2021 when DHS abandoned these protections without providing reasoning or explanation beyond trusting agents to use 'common sense' in their enforcement decisions. The change marked a dramatic shift from decades of established practice that had been repeatedly reaffirmed by agency leadership across multiple administrations.
Most recently, former DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas had reinforced the sensitive location policy in a 2021 memorandum, calling the protections 'fundamental' and emphasizing that the department could accomplish its enforcement goals without limiting access to medical care, schools, and worship. The Mayorkas memo was prominently featured on the Immigration and Customs Enforcement website and prompted Congress to begin requiring public reports on enforcement activities.
'DHS's presence in and near school property has created an atmosphere of fear, for native-born citizens, naturalized citizens and legally present immigrants alike,' the plaintiffs stated in their complaint. 'Parents across the state are afraid to send their children to school.'
The complaint documents plummeting school attendance rates since Operation Metro Surge began in early January. The enforcement operation has drawn national attention not only for its scale but also for the intense protests it has sparked, including incidents where officers fatally shot two local residents.
According to the complaint, immigration enforcement actions have been conducted both inside and around Minnesota public schools in recent weeks, representing a clear departure from the historical norm. The school districts argue that these actions violate the fundamental principle that has guided immigration enforcement for decades.
Operation Metro Surge was characterized by Secretary Noem as targeting 'murderers, rapists, pedophobes and gang members.' However, the broad enforcement actions have affected the entire educational environment, creating what the plaintiffs describe as a climate of fear that extends beyond any specific targeted individuals.
The lawsuit challenges the legal authority for this policy change, arguing that DHS lacks the power to unilaterally reverse longstanding protections without proper justification or procedural safeguards. The plaintiffs contend that the 2021 policy shift was implemented without adequate consideration of its impact on educational access and community safety.
The sensitive location policy that protected schools from immigration enforcement had been a cornerstone of federal immigration practice since 1993. The policy recognized that enforcement actions in these locations could have far-reaching negative consequences, deterring not only undocumented individuals but also U.S. citizens and legal residents from accessing essential services.
The reversal of this policy has had immediate practical consequences in Minnesota classrooms. School officials report that the mere presence of immigration agents in and around school facilities has created widespread anxiety among families, regardless of their immigration status. This fear has translated into tangible educational disruption as attendance rates decline.
The lawsuit seeks to restore the previous protections and prevent further enforcement actions on school property. The plaintiffs argue that the current policy not only violates established legal principles but also undermines the fundamental right to education guaranteed to all children.
The case highlights the tension between aggressive immigration enforcement and the need to maintain schools as safe spaces for learning. Educational advocates have long argued that immigration enforcement in schools can have devastating effects on educational outcomes and community trust.
As the lawsuit proceeds through federal court, it will test whether the longstanding protections for sensitive locations can be restored and whether immigration agencies must provide greater justification for major policy reversals that affect millions of families nationwide.