legal
Judicial and legislative responses to changes in US immigration enforcement actions
New California laws regarding school site actions are in effect
A long, brightly lit school hallway with rows of blue metal lockers on the left and a reflective, tiled floor.
Prior to January 2025, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) guidance protected schools, among other “protected areas,” from immigration enforcement by U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), except in exigent circumstances. On Jan. 20, 2025, the Acting Secretary for the DHS issued a memo entitled “Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas,” which superseded and rescinded that prior guidance.

By rescinding the guidance, the memo authorized immigration enforcement actions in or near areas previously deemed to be protected and therefore closed to immigration enforcement actions by ICE. These areas included schools as well as different types of facilities and locations such as hospitals and churches. The memo encouraged law enforcement officers to use their discretion and a “healthy dose of common sense” when executing actions in the areas previously deemed protected. The administration has claimed that ICE does not conduct raids in schools and that secondary supervisor approval is required before immigration action may be conducted at a school facility. Despite this, fear of enforcement has resulted in reduced attendance at some local educational agencies.

In response to the rescission of the protected areas guidance, two of the largest educators’ unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, along with several churches and educators, sued the Trump administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon. The lawsuit argues that the memo is unconstitutional and violates the Administrative Procedures Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. This litigation, which is still pending, will test the Executive Branch’s authority over immigration enforcement and right to change existing policy.

New California laws
In addition to judicial action, there has been a legislative response to the memo in California. In the current two-year legislative session, the Legislature passed, and Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law, two “urgency” bills — Assembly Bill 49 and Senate Bill 98 — that aim to provide safeguards and protections for students and their families as well as employees at a school site in the event there is immigration enforcement at LEA facilities. The bills also create new obligations for LEAs. AB 49 and SB 98 both passed as “urgency bills” and therefore took immediate effect upon signature by Gov. Gavin Newsom on Sept. 20, 2025.

AB 49 limits access to nonpublic spaces in schools by requiring LEA employees and officials to request valid identification from any officer or employee of an agency conducting immigration enforcement. In addition, LEA employees and officials are prohibited from allowing any immigration enforcement in nonpublic spaces at a school site without presentation of a valid judicial warrant, judicial subpoena or court order authorizing access. (This was already the state of the law under Fourth Amendment precedent.) AB 49 defines “school site” as the school campuses of a school district, county office of education or charter school, and includes areas where school-sponsored activities are being held as well as school buses or other methods of transportation provided by the LEA.

Additionally, AB 49 prohibits LEA employees from disclosing student records or any information regarding a student or a student’s household (in any form) without a parent/guardian’s written consent. This prohibition also applies to information regarding a school employee or teacher. As with access to nonpublic spaces, only the presentation of a valid judicial warrant, judicial subpoena or court order directing the LEA official or employee is sufficient to overcome this prohibition.

Finally, AB 49 requires the California Attorney General (AG) to, by Dec. 1, 2025, update his previously published model policies limiting assistance with immigration enforcement at public schools (required by AB 699, which was enacted in 2017), to include these newest prohibitions. Similarly, LEAs must update their policies, which must be equivalent to the AG model policies, by March 1, 2026, and make them available to the California Department of Education upon request.

SB 98 relates to LEAs’ Comprehensive School Safety Plans (CSSPs) and requires updates to those plans by March 1, 2026. Specifically, the plans must include procedures to notify parents/guardians, teachers, administrators and school personnel when it is confirmed that “immigration enforcement” is present at a school site. SB 98 defines “immigration enforcement” to include “any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal civil immigration law, and also includes any and all efforts to investigate, enforce, or assist in the investigation or enforcement of any federal criminal immigration law that penalizes a person’s presence in, entry, or reentry to, or employment in, the United States.”

The notification procedures required by SB 98 must consider “the safety and well-being” of students, employees and community members in determining how and when to issue such notification, and any when issued, such notification may not include any personally identifiable information. Additionally, failure to include this notice information in the proposed development of a CSSP included in a charter petition could serve as the basis for a charter authorizer to deny a charter petition. Both provisions, the basis for charter petition denial and the need for updates to the plans, are valid until their expiration on Jan. 1, 2031.

How effective these measures will prove to be in staving off ICE enforcement actions in schools will likely play out during the current school year. Thus far, such enforcement actions have been few and far between, but fear persists. CSBA will continue to monitor developments in the implementation of these two laws and any resulting litigation as well as other immigration matters.

Please note that the information provided here by CSBA is for informational purposes and is not legal advice. Contact your LEA legal counsel or CSBA Legal Services at legalservices@csba.org for questions related to this information.