Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This story was originally published by Chalkbeat Indiana.
An Indiana bill that compels greater cooperation between local governments and federal immigration authorities could affect the state’s K-12 schools.
But it’s not yet clear how the sweeping immigration bill that touches on information collection, detainer requests, hospitals, and employment may affect schools — or even which schools it would apply to.
Indiana law already prohibits governmental bodies and postsecondary institutions from impeding federal immigration enforcement, but SB 76 specifies that this applies when any level of government is doing the enforcement, as long as the actions don’t violate state or federal law.
The bill also focuses on detainer requests and specifies that governmental bodies can’t impede officers from gathering information about citizenship or immigration status.
Groups like the Indiana Association of Public School Superintendents say they’re still working to understand how the provisions of the bill might affect public schools.
The potential effects of SB 76 also sparked questions at a recent Indianapolis Public Schools legislative council meeting. The district recently changed its policies on immigration enforcement following a lawsuit from Attorney General Todd Rokita.
“I’ve got a lot of questions on if this bill is just structured to still repeat what they already had a right to do,” said IPS board member Ashley Thomas. “It is going to be really important for us to stay vigilant on that one.”
The legislation reflects federal policy changes in how immigration officers operate near schools. While schools were traditionally treated as sensitive locations off-limits to immigration enforcement, the Trump administration rescinded that policy in January 2025. Still, the administration maintains that ICE “does not raid schools.”
Minneapolis schools have reported U.S. Border Patrol officers on school property, and agents recently arrested a day care worker in Chicago. Advocates say increased fear of immigration enforcement has led to greater absenteeism and even more virtual learning days in other states.
House lawmakers passed SB 76 last week. On Monday, senate lawmakers filed a motion to adopt changes from the House, but have not yet voted. The Senate next meets on Thursday.
Which schools and employees does SB 76 apply to?
House lawmakers voted down amendments by Indianapolis Democrat Rep. Ed DeLaney that would have exempted school districts and school resource officers from the requirements of the bill.
As written, the bill applies to state universities and governmental bodies, which includes school districts under Indiana law — but not necessarily charter schools. DeLaney said his amendment would treat both types of K-12 schools the same way.
But the House sponsor of SB 76, Union City Republican Rep. J.D. Prescott, said the bill does not change the underlying definition of a governmental body that already exists in state law.
The amendment was also unnecessary because “ICE very rarely enters a school corporation,” he said during House debate on the bill.
But groups have said the uncertainty of immigration enforcement in schools also has effects.
In a call to action on the bill, the Indiana State Teachers Association said it could potentially lead to “higher levels of school absenteeism and negative changes in school climate, student mental health and community trust.”
In a recent blog post, Michael J. Petrilli of The Fordham Institute, a conservative education reform think tank, wrote that it was important to ensure that students attend school in person.
“Current immigration enforcement actions in Minnesota and elsewhere are significantly suppressing school attendance and harming student learning,” Petrilli wrote in a proposed letter to Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “We ask that you work with Secretary Noem, officials in the White House, and others to ensure that all students feel safe going to school.”
Another aspect of the bill requires local governments that have custody of an individual to comply with a federal immigration detainer requests, such as holding the person longer to give immigration authorities time to assume custody.
An amendment by DeLaney would have exempted school resource officers and university police from these requirements. However, it did not pass.
Prescott said these types of officers don’t typically hold individuals long-term, but instead make an arrest and transfer custody. Adding the exemption would amount to a loophole, he said.
How will SB 76 affect school policies on judicial warrants?
The bill doesn’t outline what policies could be considered an impediment to immigration enforcement. Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita’s office deferred questions to Prescott, who did not return a request for comment.
Rokita filed a lawsuit against IPS last year over policies that required officers to present a judicial warrant to enter schools and barred employees from collecting information about students’ immigration status, saying these illegally limited cooperation with immigration enforcement. The district has changed its policies in response to the lawsuit.
SB 76 gives greater authority to the AG’s office to pursue penalties for these violations, potentially teeing up further fights between Rokita and schools over what policies could be considered an impediment to immigration enforcement.
It comes down to how the law will be applied, said Lisa Koop, the National Immigrant Justice Center’s national director of legal services.
“On its face, I don’t see SB 76 as telling schools, you have to throw open the doors and let them in,” she said.
But if schools are considered governmental bodies, it’s possible the bill and the underlying law could be used to compel school officials to comply or to challenge school policies that require staff to ask immigration agents for a judicial warrant to enter school buildings.
“You can always consent to allow law enforcement to enter. The person in charge — the superintendent or school principal — can say, ‘sure come in,’” she said. The question then becomes about the Fourth Amendment rights of the children in the building, she said.
In a letter to IPS, Rokita argued that making a judicial warrant a condition of ICE activity on school grounds is not consistent with state law.
“There are multiple ways in which local school officials may assist ICE — from consent to ICE’s entry onto school grounds to cooperating with ICE in the apprehension of an individual who is the subject of an administrative warrant,” the letter said.
How does collecting information intersect with FERPA?
Another part of the bill specifies that a governmental body can’t restrict the gathering of information related to immigration status, as long as the request doesn’t conflict with federal law.
This could set up conflicts on the interpretation of federal law and policy regarding student information.
In the same letter to IPS, Rokita argued that schools can release directory information under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA, which could include information related to a student’s immigration status.
Schools also traditionally don’t collect immigration status because the landmark case Plyler v. Doe established that they cannot deny enrollment to a student based on citizenship status.
“There’s no reason to obtain that information,” Koop said.
Indiana and other red states have tried in the past to challenge the ruling in Plyler. Bills proposed last year would have allowed Indiana school districts to deny enrollment to immigrant students and report how many undocumented students are enrolled each year, but they did not advance.
Because a person may be in the process of obtaining citizenship, it can be difficult for a school official to correctly determine the citizenship status of a child, Koop said. Allowing officers into schools to question the citizenship status of students is an intrusion for immigrant and non-immigrant students alike, she said.
“I hope we can continue to tell clients that there’s nowhere safer to be than at theIr public school in the care of their public school teachers,” she said.
Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.