Responding to Immigration Enforcement on Campuses

02.05.2025

Several executive orders have recently been issued by the White House aimed at increasing enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws across the United States and providing federal immigration officials with greater authority to engage in such enforcement.

This Alert summarizes recent actions taken by the Trump Administration to enforce federal immigration laws in our country with specific focus on changes in federal policy related to immigration enforcement actions taken at so-called “sensitive locations” or “protected areas” such as university, college, and K-12 school district campuses. This Alert also highlights existing obligations under California law and guidance on how a California educational institution should respond to federal immigration enforcement actions if they seek information on access to a campus or student.

Executive Order and Rescission of the “Sensitive Locations” or “Protected Areas” Policy

On January 20, 2025, President Trump issued an executive order (“EO”) titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” in which federal agencies were directed to identify and increase efforts to remove undocumented immigrants from the United States through civil and criminal enforcement measures.

On January 20, 2025, the acting U.S. Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) Secretary Benjamine Huffman issued a directive rescinding the longstanding policy that previously instructed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) and Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) to refrain from immigration enforcement actions at “sensitive locations” or “protected areas,” such as educational institutions, unless exigent circumstances exist. The policy governed immigration enforcement measures at “sensitive locations” or “protected areas” during the presidential administrations of Barack Obama and Joe Biden, in addition to the first presidential administration of President Trump.

Immigration enforcement at “sensitive locations” or “protected areas” has been guided since 2011 by two memoranda: the Memorandum on Enforcement Actions at or Focused on Sensitive Locations (“2011 Sensitive Locations Memorandum”) issued on October 24, 2011 by ICE during the Obama Administration, and the Memorandum on Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas (“2021 Protected Areas Memorandum”) issued on October 27, 2021 by the DHS during the Biden Administration, which superseded and rescinded the 2011 Sensitive Locations Memorandum.

The 2011 Sensitive Locations Memorandum provided that enforcement actions, including arrests, interviews, searches, and surveillance for purposes of immigration enforcement, were not to take place, as a general matter, at sensitive locations including, but not limited to, elementary and secondary schools, in addition to postsecondary educational institutions, “unless (a) exigent circumstances exist[ed], (b) other law enforcement actions led officers to a sensitive location, or (c) prior approval [was] obtained.”

The 2021 Protected Areas Memorandum, which superseded the 2011 Sensitive Locations Memorandum, provided examples of protected areas, which included a “school, such as a pre-school, primary or secondary school, vocational or trade school, or college or university.” Similar to the “exigent circumstances” identified in the 2011 Sensitive Locations Memorandum, the 2021 Protected Areas Memorandum identified some limited circumstances where there might be a need for immigration enforcement actions to take place in or near a protected area, such as when “[t]he enforcement action involves a national security threat,” “[t]here is an imminent risk of death, violence or physical harm to a person,” “[t]he enforcement action involves the hot pursuit of an individual who poses a public safety threat,” “[t]he enforcement action involves the hot pursuit of a personally observed border-crosser,” “[t]here is an imminent risk that evidence material to a criminal case will be destroyed,” and “[a] safe alternative location does not exist.”

Despite the recent rescission of the policy limiting immigration enforcement at school districts and postsecondary educational institutions, it remains unclear how, in practice, the Trump administration will enforce immigration laws at these sites. Nevertheless, it must be underscored that other federal and state case and statutory laws safeguard California students irrespective of immigration status in the education context, some of which are discussed below.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Plyler v. Doe and Other Statutory Protections

In 1982, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case Plyler v. Doe, addressed whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying “to undocumented school-age children the free public education that it provides to children who are citizens of the United States or legally admitted aliens.” (Plyler v. Doe (1982) 457 U.S. 202.) In finding a violation of the Equal Protection Clause, the Court stated that, “to deny a discrete group of innocent children the free public education that it offers to other children residing within its borders, that denial must be justified by a showing that it furthers some substantial state interest. No such showing was made here.” (Plyler at 230.) Additionally, under Section 48200 of the California Education Code, students between six and eighteen years of age are mandated to attend school in California. Cal. Educ. Code § 48200. Further, students, irrespective of immigration status, have the right to be in an educational environment free from discrimination, harassment, violence, intimidation, and bullying. Cal. Educ. Code §§ 220 and 234.

California’s Senate Bill 54 (“SB 54”), known as the California Values Act, went into effect on January 1, 2018 and limits state and local law enforcement’s role in assisting federal agents’ enforcement of immigration laws. It specifically prohibits state and local law enforcement from using funds or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, or arrest persons for immigration enforcement purposes. Under SB 54, local law enforcement agencies cannot inquire into an individual’s immigration status, detain an individual pursuant to a hold request, transfer an individual to immigration authorities (except in specific, limited instances), or provide personal information about an individual such as their home or work address, unless that information is already public. During President Trump’s first term, his administration unsuccessfully challenged the validity of SB 54. In June 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant review of the Trump Administration’s petition challenging SB 54, which left intact the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[1] affirming the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction as to SB 54.

California’s Assembly Bill 699 (“AB 699”) (Educational Equity: Immigration and Citizenship Status) went into effect on January 1, 2018 and, among other requirements, prohibits discrimination, harassment, intimidation, and bullying based on actual or perceived immigration status, and requires a process for investigating complaints based on immigration status. It also prohibits schools and school boards from collecting information regarding citizenship unless required to administer other state or federal programs, and encourages schools to follow parents’ instructions in emergency contact information in the event of parents’ absence. It further requires a school district to report any requests to gain information or access to a school site by an officer or employee of a law enforcement agency for immigration enforcement activities to the school board. AB 699 required the California Attorney General to develop by April 1, 2018 “model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools, to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law, and ensuring that public schools remain safe and accessible to all California residents regardless of immigration status. Under AB 699, all schools were required to adopt the model policies developed by the Attorney General or equivalent policies by July 1, 2018.

California Assembly Bill 21 (“AB 21”) (Public Postsecondary Education: Access to Higher Education for Every Student) also went into effect on January 1, 2018 and similarly requires California State University campuses and community college districts to “[a]dopt and implement, by March 1, 2019, the model polic[ies] developed by the Attorney General or equivalent polic[ies] pursuant to the California Values Act …., limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible consistent with federal and state law.” The Regents of the University of California and private postsecondary institutions were requested to do the same under AB 21.

California Attorney General’s Guidance and Model Policies

In 2018, then-California Attorney General Xavier Becerra issued guidance and model policies for schools and postsecondary educational institutions as required by AB 699 and SB 54. California Attorney General Rob Bonta updated the guidance and model policies in December 2024 in anticipation of the commencement of President Trump’s second administration.[2]

Similar guidance and model policies were issued by the Attorney General’s Office for California’s school districts and postsecondary educational institutions with respect to responding to immigration enforcement actions on campus. The guidance and model policies for K-12 and postsecondary educational institutions also provide guidance and model policies specific to the sharing of student and family information so as to ensure compliance with federal and state laws, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (“FERPA”). The needs of and interests of educational institutions will vary; and, although the Attorney General provided guidance and model policies on responding to immigration issues, educational institutions should consult with legal counsel to determine whether the example policies are appropriate for their particular circumstance and, if not, how they should be amended. Links to the two guidance and model policies documents are provided below:

AALRR attorneys are tracking the executive orders of the new presidential administration, including those concerning immigration enforcement measures that impact California’s campuses, related agency guidance, legal challenges, and state and federal legislation regarding immigration enforcement and related civil rights matters.

We emphasize that this is a rapidly evolving area. If your agency has questions about its obligations under federal and state law concerning these matters, or needs assistance in drafting protocols and policies focused on responding to immigration enforcement actions on your campus, please contact your AALRR attorney or the authors of this Alert.

[1] Our previous Alert on this topic can be found here: https://www.aalrr.com/newsroom-alerts-3735

[2] Although the Attorney General’s guidance does not have the force and effect of law, it does provide a tool for compliance for California’s educational institutions.