Denver’s public school system on Feb. 12 sued the U.S. government over its new policy that lets immigration agents enter schools and other so-called sensitive places.
The policy violates federal law by being arbitrary and capricious since the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) “has not demonstrated that there are good reasons for the new policy,” the school system said in a motion for a temporary restraining order.
A DHS spokesperson told The Epoch Times in an email: “We are protecting our schools, places of worship, and Americans who attend by preventing criminal aliens and gang members from exploiting these locations and taking safe haven there because these criminals knew law enforcement couldn’t go inside under the previous Administration.”
The spokesperson added: “DHS’s directive gives our law enforcement the ability to do their jobs. For context: Our agents use discretion. Officers would need secondary supervisor approval before any action can be taken in locations such as a church or a school. We expect these to be extremely rare.”
“Our brave men and women in uniform put their lives on the line every day to advance the rule of law and keep our people safe. As a part of that work, officers frequently apply enforcement discretion to balance a variety of interests, including the degree to which any law enforcement action occurs in a sensitive location,” Huffman wrote in the memo.
“Going forward, law enforcement officers should continue to use that discretion along with a healthy dose of common sense. It is not necessary, however, for the head of the agency to create bright line rules regarding where our immigration laws are permitted to be enforced. The Director of ICE and the Commissioner of CBP may wish to issue further guidance to assist officers in exercising appropriate enforcement discretion.”
A DHS spokesperson said in a statement that the move empowered agents to capture illegal immigrants, including murderers and rapists.
Denver Public Schools said that neither the memo nor the statement provides support for the policy change.
“Defendants did not demonstrate that there are good reasons for the new policy, as is required by the APA,” or Administrative Procedure Act, the school system said. “Defendants have provided no evidence that it examined relevant data, or any data. For example, Defendants have not cited any evidence to support its statement that criminals were hiding in schools. Nor have Defendants provided any—let alone a satisfactory—explanation for the 2025 Policy.”
Government officials also failed to consider alternatives, such as keeping the prior policy in place but modifying it to enable easier arrests of illegal immigrants, according to the school system.
It asked the court to enter an order blocking the policy nationwide as the case moves forward.
The suit is the latest to challenge the policy, with several previously being filed by religious groups.
“Deterring immigrants from worshipping in-person with a Quaker meeting would ... directly interfere with Plaintiff’s religious exercise,” the Quakers said.
They added: “To be clear, enforcement activities near places of worship have been permitted for decades. The only thing that has changed is that pre-approval from a supervisory official is no longer mandatory. And the DHS memorandum expressly contemplates that components may issue their own guidance, which the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (‘ICE’) has recently done, instructing supervisory officials to make ‘case-by-case determinations about enforcement actions near protected areas.’”
