Trump Administration Fights DPS Lawsuit Over Immigration Arrests at Schools

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

• DHS requested dismissal of Denver Public Schools’ lawsuit challenging the rescission of “sensitive locations” protections filed on February 13, 2025.
• The January 20, 2025, policy change allows ICE and CBP more latitude to enforce laws at schools, hospitals, and churches.
• The lawsuit seeks to reinstate protections, citing attendance drops, disrupted routines, and harm to families under new enforcement guidelines.

The Trump administration has formally responded to a federal lawsuit filed by Denver Public Schools (DPS) concerning changes to immigration enforcement policies at schools. In its court filing on February 24, 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) argued that DPS lacks legal authority to challenge the administration’s actions and requested that the U.S. District Court in Denver dismiss the case. This legal battle, initiated on February 13, 2025, highlights growing tensions over the recent changes to “sensitive locations” enforcement policies.

The core issue stems from the Trump administration’s decision on January 20, 2025, to rescind the “sensitive locations” policy. This guideline, which operated for over a decade, limited Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents from conducting operations at schools, places of worship, and hospitals without prior approval from agency headquarters. The rollback now allows federal agents greater latitude to enforce immigration laws in these areas. DHS has defended the policy change, calling it a move to improve the effectiveness of enforcement while granting officers discretion to apply “common sense” in their decisions.

Trump Administration Fights DPS Lawsuit Over Immigration Arrests at Schools

DPS, however, has raised concerns, stating that the cancellation of protections has caused “numerous harms” to students, staff, and families. The district reported a marked drop in student attendance shortly after the policy was rescinded. For example, attendance plummeted to 84.5% on January 30, 2025, compared to an 88% average for the same period in the previous year. Such figures seem to correlate with rumors of looming immigration raids at local schools, sparking widespread anxiety among immigrant communities. DPS claims the fear of enforcement has disrupted educational routines, compromised trust in schools, and presented “operational challenges” for educators tasked with maintaining both safety and order.

The lawsuit seeks significant relief from the court. It requests the nullification of the Trump administration’s policy and an injunction to prevent implementation on a preliminary and permanent basis. DPS also calls for transparency, insisting that the details of the new enforcement policy be publicly disclosed. The district argues that schools must remain sanctuaries where students and families, irrespective of immigration status, feel safe. Superintendent Alex Marrero expressed concerns over the emotional toll on students, describing incidents of “terrified parents” and a growing perception that schools are no longer immune from enforcement. “The administration’s actions jeopardize the trust and security schools have long provided,” Marrero stated.

However, the Department of Homeland Security has been steadfast in its defense. A DHS spokesperson commented that the administration “trusts law enforcement to use discretion” to safeguard communities. A press statement from DHS emphasized that the new guidelines aim to eliminate so-called “safe havens” for individuals evading lawful action and maintained that the previously existing “sensitive locations” policy was overly restrictive. DHS further asserted that emergencies or national security risks could occur in any location, including schools, necessitating a broader enforcement framework.

This case has quickly garnered national attention, as it could set a precedent for how immigration enforcement is conducted at educational institutions. DPS has become a focal point for broader concerns, and reports indicate that other large school districts in urban areas are monitoring developments closely or considering joining the lawsuit. If the court rules in favor of DPS, the decision could reaffirm protections at schools not just in Denver but across the country. On the other hand, a dismissal of DPS’s claims could embolden enforcement agencies to initiate operations at other traditionally protected locations.

The intersection of immigration policy with education rights adds further social and legal complexity to the unfolding dispute. Legal analysts have pointed to the 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe, which determined that unauthorized immigrant children have a constitutional right to access public education. Some argue that increased immigration enforcement at schools could indirectly undermine this right by discouraging attendance and impacting families’ willingness to engage with educational systems. DPS’s argument aligns with this concern, contending that persistent apprehension about raids interferes with the district’s ability to deliver equitable education for all children, regardless of legal status.

DPS has taken steps to mitigate potential fallout from these policy changes. The school district introduced a framework for responding to immigration enforcement on campus. Its guidelines direct staff to deny ICE agents entry unless they present formal warrants and to notify the district’s legal office immediately. Additionally, DPS’s protocols include placing campuses on secure perimeter status—a measure designed to restrict access while avoiding the harsher implications of a full lockdown. These policies aim to reassure students and families while maintaining legal compliance with federal procedures.

Despite these efforts, critics argue that DPS’s claims lack merit. DHS’s legal argument asserts that school districts do not hold legal standing to challenge federal policies, as immigration enforcement falls under the exclusive purview of the federal government. DHS lawyers argue that DPS’s lawsuit constitutes an overreach and suggest that the court lacks jurisdiction over federal immigration matters.

The debate over the “sensitive locations” policy also underscores broader shifts in immigration strategy during the Trump administration’s second term. Alongside rescinding sensitive location policies, other impactful measures have included proposals to eliminate birthright citizenship and suspensions on refugee admissions. Collectively, these moves signal a pronounced focus on enhancing enforcement mechanisms while limiting avenues for legal residency or asylum. Critics argue that these actions disproportionately impact vulnerable groups, while supporters view them as necessary measures to restore compliance with immigration laws.

For school administrators across the United States, the case presents a quandary. Many schools serve as community hubs, especially in areas with high immigrant populations. Teaching staff and security personnel often find themselves navigating dual responsibilities: safeguarding students’ emotional well-being and adhering to evolving federal rules. For parents and families, the uncertainty compounds stress, leaving them grappling with how to secure their children’s education without risking exposure to enforcement actions.

The legal trajectory of DPS’s case will inevitably be watched closely. If the court overcomes procedural objections and allows the lawsuit to proceed, the ruling could address whether the district’s concerns over diminished attendance and student safety merit judicial intervention. Conversely, a judgment in favor of DHS would reinforce the administration’s removal of sensitive location protections and potentially encourage broader application of these enforcement policies at other schools, hospitals, or places of worship.

As the case unfolds, critical questions remain. How can schools balance their responsibilities as education providers while adhering to federal laws they may find morally or ethically conflicting? Will increased immigration enforcement compromise the essential role schools play as community safe spaces? And ultimately, what legal boundaries exist when distinguishing the roles of local institutions and federal immigration agencies?

For now, DPS and other school districts must wait for the court’s ruling—a decision that holds the potential to redefine both the scope of immigration enforcement and the sanctity of educational spaces. Those impacted by the policy change, including students, families, and school staff, face deep uncertainty. The implications of this case could ripple nationwide, reshaping how and where immigration laws are enforced. For further information on federal policies affecting immigration enforcement, readers can visit the official U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) page for direct access to relevant updates and documents.

Learn Today

Sensitive Locations Policy → A guideline limiting immigration enforcement actions at schools, places of worship, and hospitals without prior approval.
Deterrence Framework → A strategy designed to discourage specific actions, such as illegal immigration, often through stricter enforcement measures.
Injunction → A court order requiring an individual or entity to either perform or cease performing a particular action.
Legal Standing → The ability of a party to demonstrate sufficient interest and harm to bring a lawsuit to court.
Secure Perimeter Status → A safety protocol restricting access to school grounds while avoiding a full lockdown during potential threats or emergencies.

This Article in a Nutshell

Denver Public Schools sued the Trump administration over rescinding “sensitive locations” protections, which barred immigration raids at schools. DHS argues DPS lacks legal standing, while fears of enforcement have caused attendance drops and community anxiety. This case could redefine school safety and immigration policy nationwide, balancing education rights against federal enforcement priorities.
— By VisaVerge.com