Federal Judge Weighs Whether ICE Can Storm Schools After Trump Scrapped 30-Year Policy

For 30 years, schools were supposed to be off-limits for immigration raids. Then Donald Trump took office in January 2025, and on his first day back in power, his Department of Homeland Security threw out that policy. Within weeks, the consequences were exactly what you'd expect from an administration that treats cruelty as a feature, not a bug.

Border Patrol agents stormed onto the grounds of Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis. They deployed chemical munitions on staff and students. They tackled and choked an educator. Other schools reported ICE staging raids in their parking lots, pointing guns at teachers, and detaining parents at school bus stops. One ICE unit pulled up in front of an elementary school and blasted "Ice Ice Baby" on their radio, because apparently terrorizing children is hilarious when you're a federal agent under Trump.

School attendance across Minnesota collapsed as students and parents stayed home out of fear. And now, three months later, a federal judge is deciding whether any of this was legal.

On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Laura Provinzino heard arguments in St. Paul from Fridley Public Schools, Duluth Public Schools, and Education Minnesota, the state's teachers union. They're suing to reinstate the sensitive locations policy, which since 1993 has classified schools, hospitals, and places of worship as areas where immigration enforcement should be avoided except in extreme circumstances.

The Trump administration rescinded that policy on January 20, 2025. What followed was Operation Metro Surge, a massive immigration enforcement sweep that turned Minnesota schools into hunting grounds.

"For the last several months, educators have struggled mightily to shield students, to provide a sense of normalcy, and to fulfill their mission to educate our children," said Amanda Cialkowski, an attorney for the plaintiffs. "That job has been made exponentially more difficult by the revocation of the sensitive locations policy and immigration enforcement action that followed."

The government's defense? Essentially, that the old policy didn't really matter anyway, so bringing it back won't change anything. Jessica Lundberg, an attorney for the Department of Justice, argued that immigration enforcement was always technically allowed near schools under certain circumstances, even under the previous policy.

Judge Provinzino wasn't buying it. "Even if it hasn't happened in 30 years?" she asked.

"That is what I'm arguing today," Lundberg replied.

Let that sink in. The government's position is that a policy that successfully kept ICE out of schools for three decades was meaningless, and the fact that agents immediately swarmed schools the moment Trump revoked it is just a coincidence.

Cialkowski pushed back hard. "If you see the myriad examples in the declaration, including ICE pulling up in front of an elementary school and blasting 'Ice Ice Baby' on their radio, there is no world in which that would have been permitted under the prior policy," she said. "Yanking people out of their cars, including U.S. citizens with passports, that would not have been permitted under the prior policy."

The government also argued that the schools and union don't have standing to sue because they're not directly harmed by immigration enforcement. This is a common tactic: claim that the people most affected by a policy can't challenge it because they're not the direct targets. Never mind that educators are watching their students traumatized, that parents are too terrified to drop their kids off at school, and that teachers are getting choked by federal agents.

Judge Provinzino seemed skeptical of that argument too. She noted that while the government claims Operation Metro Surge has wound down, there's been no commitment to avoid enforcement near schools going forward. "I don't see any statement that the government is choosing to forego enforcement activity near these protected spaces," she said.

The plaintiffs also argued that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by changing the policy without following proper procedures. Sean Ouellette, another attorney for the schools and union, said the government failed to address the original reasons for the policy, consider the harm to people who relied on it, or explore alternatives.

"For all those reasons, the action is arbitrary and capricious," Ouellette said.

This lawsuit matters because it's about more than just immigration policy. It's about whether an administration can unilaterally tear up decades of precedent without justification, due process, or regard for the consequences. It's about whether schools can be safe spaces for children, or whether they're just another venue for Trump's deportation machine.

For now, educators in Minnesota are left trying to reassure terrified students while knowing they can't promise safety. "They cannot say yes anymore, and that completely links to the policy change," Cialkowski told the court.

Judge Provinzino will now decide whether the Trump administration's revocation of the sensitive locations policy was legal. If she rules for the schools, the policy would be reinstated, at least temporarily. If she rules for the government, schools across the country will remain fair game for ICE raids.

Either way, the message from this administration is clear: no place is off-limits, not even elementary schools. And they'll blast "Ice Ice Baby" while they terrorize your kids, just to make sure you know they're enjoying it.