Indiana’s controversial immigration bill is now law — and it may be used against IPS

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita has mobilized the state’s new immigration enforcement legislation less than a week after it was signed into law by Gov. Mike Braun — and Indianapolis Public Schools appears to be the first target.

On Monday, the attorney general’s office filed a motion in its case against the school district requesting that the Marion Superior Court take into account the enactment of Senate Enrolled Act 76 — which says an illegal ordinance, resolution, rule, or policy that restricts another governmental body or employee of a governmental body or postsecondary educational institution can be both “written or unwritten.”

The attorney general’s office and IPS have been entangled for months, since Rokita claimed a 2017 policy that directed employees not to assist immigration enforcement authorities without approval was illegal.

According to the original complaint, in January 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement was in the process of deporting a Honduran man and his son, who was an IPS student. ICE contacted IPS, which reportedly took the position not to release the son into ICE’s custody unless the officer had a judicial warrant or other court order.

Rokita filed an investigative demand and IPS eventually modified its policy, but the changes did not ease Rokita’s concerns — his office filed its lawsuit in November.

IPS rescinded that policy in January and moved to dismiss Rokita’s claims that the school violated Indiana Code § 5-2-18.2-3, a part of the anti-sanctuary city statute that SEA 76 changed and which Rokita had long sought for the Legislature to amend.

A hearing was held on IPS’s partial motion to dismiss on March 5 — the same day Braun signed SEA 76 into law.

Rokita is now asking the court to reexamine his office’s previous allegations regarding I.C. 5-2-18.2-3 in light of the new law.

“The enactment of SEA 76 provides further indication that Section 3 of Indiana Code ch. 5-2-18.2, even absent the amendments made by SEA 76, applies to restrictions local government entities place on their own employees, meaning that Defendant’s restrictions on its own employees’ communications with federal authorities are actionable under Section 3,” Rokita’s office wrote in its Monday request.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana, which is representing IPS, could not comment on the case in time for The Indiana Lawyer’s publication deadline.

Other pending cases

This appears to be the first official application of SEA 76 to state immigration enforcement. The Lawyer reached out to the Attorney General’s Office to confirm whether the law has been invoked in other cases so far, but the office did not respond before Tuesday’s deadline.

Rokita currently has two other cases pending regarding the anti-sanctuary city statute.

In 2024, Rokita brought an action against Monroe County Sheriff Ruben Marté for instituting a policy that he alleges violates Indiana law by restricting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. (A status conference in that case is set for March 13.)

And in January, he filed a lawsuit against St. Joseph County Sheriff Bill Redman on similar grounds, but the case failed to reach the discovery stage, and the St. Joseph County Circuit Court found that Rokita’s office did not have standing to bring the action. Rokita appealed the decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals, where it currently sits.

Also on Monday, the ACLU filed a motion requesting to join as Redman’s co-defendant, saying it estimates Rokita’s interpretation of the anti-sanctuary city statute represents “an example of overreach” that could “lead directly to a violation of individuals’ constitutional rights.”

The ACLU is also representing Exodus Refugee Immigration, a nonprofit organization serving refugees and immigrants that has offices in Indianapolis and Bloomington. Last fall, Rokita filed a civil investigative demand — essentially a civil subpoena — against the organization, demanding information about possible interference with federal immigration activities.

Rokita’s case against IPS is State of Indiana ex rel. Todd Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana v. Indianapolis Public Schools (49D05-2511-PL-052633).