A federal judge on March 7 declined to block a new federal immigration enforcement policy that lets agents enter schools to arrest illegal immigrants.
“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,” the suit stated.
That means the move was arbitrary and capricious, in contravention of federal law, Denver officials said.
A DHS spokesperson said at the time that the administration was “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. DHS’s directive gives our law enforcement the ability to do their jobs.”
Since the policy change, Denver school officials said that there has been a decrease in school attendance and a slew of reported ICE raids around schools. Denver’s superintendent told the court that students and parents had been arrested in the raids, stoking fear in the school community.
Under a previous version of the policy, agents with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a DHS component, made just two arrests at schools, under exigent circumstances, from Oct. 1, 2018, through Oct. 31, 2020, according to a court filing. Another 18 arrests were made near schools.
They also said that the new policy did not differ significantly from the previous policy. While that 2021 policy said in part that “we should not take an enforcement action in or near a location” listed as protected, agents were still able to conduct arrests at or around such places, the officials noted. Schools remain on a list of protected areas, and agents still need authorization before entering the locations, they added.
Domenico, the judge, said on Friday that it wasn’t clear how much of the fear surrounding possible enforcement actions in schools was really due to the new rules as opposed to broader concerns of increased immigration actions.
He noted the requirement that authorities receive supervisory approval before entering sensitive places and said that the fear over the new rules, as well as the belief that the old rules provided protection to schools, both seemed to be overstated.