logo
Schools to open with unprecedented protections for children and their parents amid ICE raids

Schools to open with unprecedented protections for children and their parents amid ICE raids

Los Angeles public schools are opening Thursday for the new academic year confronting an intense and historically unique moment: They will be operating in opposition to the federal government's immigration raids and have set in motion aggressive moves to protect children and their immigrant parents.
School police and officers from several municipal forces will patrol near some 100 schools, setting up 'safe zones' in heavily Latino neighborhoods, with a special concentration at high schools where older Latino students are walking to campus. Bus routes are being changed to better serve areas with immigrant families so children can get to school with less exposure to immigration agents.
Community volunteers will join district staff and contractors to serve as scouts — alerting campuses of nearby enforcement actions so schools can be locked down as warranted and parents and others in the school community can be quickly notified via email and text.
L.A. Mayor Karen Bass spoke about 'how profound this moment is in U.S. history' during a Monday news conference with local officials.
'Here you have an entire array of elected officials, appointed officials, education leaders, people committed to our children, and we are gathered here today to talk about protecting our children from the federal government,' Bass said.
L.A. schools Supt. Alberto Carvalho said recently that the nation's second-largest school system will oppose 'any entity, at any level, that seeks to interfere with the educational process of our children. We are standing on the right side of the Constitution, and years from now, I guarantee you, we will have stood on the right side of history. We know that.'
The worries among school officials and parents are not without cause.
On Monday federal agents reportedly drew their guns on a 15-year-old boy and handcuffed him outside Arleta High School. The confrontation ended with de-escalation. Family members persuaded federal agents that the boy — who is disabled — was not the person they were looking for, Carvalho said.
The situation was largely resolved by the time the school principal realized what was going on and rushed out to assist. School police also arrived and scooped up unspent bullets dropped on the ground by the agents, Carvalho said.
A spokesperson for U.S. Customs and Border Protection said Tuesday that Arleta High was not being targeted. Instead agents were conducting 'a targeted operation' on a 'criminal illegal alien,' they described as 'a Salvadoran national and suspected MS-13 pledge with prior criminal convictions in the broader vicinity of Arleta.'
At a Tuesday White House briefing, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, responded to a question that referenced the L.A. Times reporting about the incident.
'I'll have to look into the veracity of that report,' Leavitt said. 'I read the L.A. Times almost every single day, and they are notorious for misleading the public... This administration wants to ensure that all school children across the country, in every city, from Los Angeles to D.C., can go to school safely.'
The incident outside Arleta High is among the ongoing confrontations across the region that have provoked public protests and prompted the Trump administration in June to deploy troops to Los Angeles. Enforcement actions have included masked agents arresting people at parking lots, in parks, on sidewalks and next to bus stops.
Litigation, including a temporary restraining order, appears to have slowed down local immigration raids, but federal officials have strongly affirmed that they have not stopped.
Trump administration policy is that no location — including a school — is off limits for enforcement actions in his drive to deport at least 1 million immigrants a year.
'People in our country illegally can self-deport the easy way, or they can get deported the hard way. And that's not pleasant,' Trump said in a video posted to a White House social account.
'A big part of it is to create the sense of fear so people will self-deport,' said Jimmy Gomez, a Trump critic and Democratic member of Congress representing Los Angeles.
The ripple effect is that school communities are experiencing fear and trauma, worried that agents will descend on or near campuses.
Most in the state's public school systems, including in L.A. Unified have embraced a counter mission, protecting the right of children — regardless of immigration status — to a public education. That right to an education is, so far, protected by past U.S. Supreme Court rulings.
For most school officials up and down the state, a necessary corollary to that right is safeguarding students' guardians and close relatives.
On Tuesday, 30 school board members from L.A. County — which has 80 school districts — convened in Hawthorne to emphasize their own focus on protecting immigrant families.
'We're about to welcome students back to schools, but we're very concerned that these fears and anxieties may potentially have an impact for students not wanting to come back,' said Lynwood Unified school board member Alma Castro, an organizer of the event.
She called her district a 'safe haven.' Among other measures, her district has trained staff to 'restrict the sharing of any student files, any student information, and there's been some work with thinking about our facilities to ensure that we have campuses that are closed off, that people can't just walk in.'
L.A. Unified, with about 400,000 students, has been layering on protections for months, recently working to incorporate ideas advocated by the teachers union and immigrant-rights groups.
A major ongoing effort is building safe-passage networks one, two and three blocks out from a campus. Participants include paid outside groups, district employees and volunteer activists. School police — though diminished in numbers due to staffing cuts — are to patrol sensitive areas and are on call to move quickly to where situations arise. Some anti-police activists want the protective mission accomplished without any role for school police.
A safe-passage presence has expanded from 40 schools last year to at least 100 this year, among about 1,000 campuses total, Carvalho said.
'It is virtually impossible, considering the size of our community, to ensure that we have one caring, compassionate individual in every street corner in every street,' Carvalho said. 'But we are deploying resources at a level never before seen in our district.'
Other various efforts include:
Carvalho and leaders of other school districts reiterated that K-12 campuses and anything related to schooling, such as a school bus or a graduation ceremony, will be off limits to immigration agents unless they have a valid judicial warrant for a specific individual — which has been rare.
'We do not know what the enrollment will be like,' Carvalho said. 'We know many parents may have already left our community. They may have self-deported... We hope that through our communication efforts, our awareness efforts, information and the direct counseling with students and parents, that we'll be able to provide stable attendance for kids in our community.'
Mary, a Los Angeles mother of three without legal status, was terrified, but more or less knew what to do when immigration agents came to her door twice in May for a 'wellness check' on her children: She did not let them in to her home. She did not step outside.
And, eventually, the agents — at least eight of them who arrived with at least three vehicles — left.
Mary had learned about what to do in this situation from her Los Angeles public school.
Mary, who requested that her full name not be used, has three children, one of whom attends an Alliance College-Ready charter school, a network of 26 privately operated public schools.
Like L.A. Unified, Alliance has trained staff on the legal rights of immigrants and also trained parents about how to handle encounters with immigration agents and where to go for help.
Alliance largely serves low-income, Latino communities and the immigration raids affected attendance in the school last year. Normally, attendance runs about 90% at the end of their school year. This June, average daily attendance at 14 Alliance high schools had dipped below 80%. Six fell below 70% and one dropped as low as 57.5%.
Alliance also attempted to gather deportation data. Nine families responded in a school network that enrolls about 13,000. In two cases, students were deported; three other students had family members deported; one student and a sibling were in a family that self-deported; one student was detained; two families reported facing deportation proceedings.
While these numbers are small, the reports are more than enough to heighten fear within the community. And some families may have declined to be candid about their circumstances.
'What's happening now is that no one is safe anywhere, not even in your home, at work, outside, taking a stroll,' L.A. school board member Rocio Rivas said in an interview.
Still, Rivas is encouraging families to send children to school, which she considers safer than other places.
Alliance is focusing heavily on mental-health support and also arranging carpools to and from school — in which the driver is a U.S. citizen, said Omar Reyes, a superintendent of instruction at the Alliance charter group.
Carvalho, a onetime undocumented immigrant himself, said that students deserve a traditional and joyous first day followed by a school year without trauma.
Children, he said, 'inherently deserve dignity, humanity, love, empathy, compassion and great education.
Times staff writer Andrea Castillo contributed to this report.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Thanks to Gaza, It's Now Kosher to Criticize Israel
Thanks to Gaza, It's Now Kosher to Criticize Israel

Politico

time16 hours ago

  • Politico

Thanks to Gaza, It's Now Kosher to Criticize Israel

A demonstrator displays her hands painted in red to depict blood during an anti-government protest outside the Israeli Ministry of Defense headquarters in Tel Aviv on Aug. 2, 2025. | Jack Guez/AFP via Getty Images Daniel W. Drezner is academic dean and distinguished professor of international politics at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He is the author of Drezner's World . Earlier this month I attended an open town hall for my congressman, Jake Auchincloss of Massachusetts. Since he's a moderate Democrat in a district that has been reliably Democrat for some time now, I expected that the bulk of the questions Auchincloss would receive would be variations of 'Why aren't you fighting Trump harder?' Indeed, Auchincloss' opening remarks were typical Democratic talking points including defending the Constitution, reinvigorating the Democratic Party and getting America talking again. While some constituent questions revolved around those topics as well, they were not the primary subject. The most common question from one of the most heavily Jewish congressional districts in the country was some variation of, 'What are you going to do about the starvation in Gaza?' Auchincloss is not the only representative to face angry questions about Gaza at his town halls. Furthermore, the responses to Auchincloss' stilted, minimalist answers (starvation is bad; being pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian should not be mutually contradictory; Hamas has a singular responsibility to end the conflict) indicated that while there were some supporters of the current Israeli government in the audience, they were badly outnumbered by critics of Israel — and U.S. support for Israel.

Same-Sex Marriage Turnback 'Possible But Unlikely', Legal Experts Say
Same-Sex Marriage Turnback 'Possible But Unlikely', Legal Experts Say

Newsweek

time21 hours ago

  • Newsweek

Same-Sex Marriage Turnback 'Possible But Unlikely', Legal Experts Say

Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Ten years after Obergefell v. Hodges legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, the Supreme Court is being asked to revisit the landmark ruling. Mathew Staver, counsel for petitioner Kim Davis, told Newsweek he believes the case could overturn Obergefell. However, several other legal experts say the widely accepted law is unlikely to be reversed. The Context The petitioner is Kim Davis, the former Kentucky county clerk jailed in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, citing her religious beliefs. Davis argues Obergefell v. Hodges was wrongly decided and that her refusal was protected under the First Amendment. Under U.S. law, a party can petition the Supreme Court to review a case after lower courts have ruled against them, typically by filing a petition for a writ of certiorari. The Court is not required to hear the case—it selects only a small fraction of petitions, often those raising significant constitutional questions, resolving conflicts among lower courts, or addressing issues with broad national impact. Davis and her legal team are asking the justices to take up her case as a vehicle to reconsider Obergefell itself. What People Are Saying Newsweek asked experts to assess the petition's chances and the legal, moral, and procedural factors that could influence the Court's decision. 10 Years Of Marriage Equality By Supreme Court Could Be Reviewed 10 Years Of Marriage Equality By Supreme Court Could Be Reviewed Anthony Behar/AP Here are their exclusive responses: Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel "This case presents compelling facts for the Supreme Court to review. Kim Davis asked for a reasonable accommodation of her religious belief—to remove her name from marriage certificates. That request was granted by newly elected Governor Matt Bevin in December 2015, and in April 2016, the legislature unanimously passed a law allowing clerks to remove their names from certificates. Yet she was sued, jailed for six days, and now faces a personal judgment exceeding $360,000. "We are asking the Court to affirm her First Amendment defense and to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges. We are optimistic because three current justices—Chief Justice Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito—dissented in Obergefell. In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, which overturned Roe v. Wade, five justices ruled that substantive due process is not grounded in the Constitution and that the Court should remain neutral when the Constitution does not expressly provide a right. Obergefell is likewise grounded in that now-rejected doctrine, and the Court should remain neutral regarding marriage as it did in 2022 regarding abortion. "We need four justices for certiorari and five to win. We believe this is the case that can overturn Obergefell." William Powell, Georgetown Law "We are confident the Supreme Court, like the court of appeals, will conclude Davis's arguments do not merit further attention. Marriage equality is settled law." Erwin Chemerinsky, UC Berkeley Law "I think it is unlikely the Court will overrule Obergefell, though it is possible. Marriage equality is deeply entrenched and widely accepted in American society. Roberts, Thomas, and Alito all dissented in Obergefell. I expect Thomas and Alito would vote to overturn. Roberts's position is uncertain, though the only dissent he ever read from the bench was in Obergefell. Justice Gorsuch wrote a dissent in Pavan v. Smith sharply criticizing Obergefell. What about Kavanaugh and Barrett? There may be the votes, but my instinct is the Court is unlikely to do so. It is not controversial in the way Roe v. Wade remained." Camilla Taylor, Lambda Legal "This case's procedural posture is simply not an appropriate one for reconsidering Obergefell. Other cases might provide a 'cooler vehicle,' but they are nowhere near ready for Supreme Court review. While the threat is some distance off, this is a Supreme Court that has shown it will casually overturn decades of precedent and upend civil rights. "If reversed, it would create a patchwork of states where same-sex marriage is legal in some places but banned in others. The Respect for Marriage Act (RFMA) ensures states must recognize marriages performed elsewhere and the federal government will do the same. Public opinion now enjoys broad, majoritarian support for same-sex marriage. Justice Kennedy's Obergefell opinion noted that denying marriage sends the message that families are 'lesser' and 'something of which they should feel ashamed'—a stigma the government was required to address. That belief remains relevant: you shouldn't brand classes of people as lesser simply because of who they love." Ilya Somin, George Mason University "If Obergefell were overturned, most states—due to over 70% public support—would still have same-sex marriage, but perhaps eight or nine socially conservative states would not. That would raise questions about how to handle same-sex couples who married while Obergefell was in effect. RFMA requires states to recognize marriages contracted elsewhere, but in non-issuing states it would still be a hassle. "The end of Roe was unsurprising because opponents saw abortion as akin to murder. By contrast, very few opponents of same-sex marriage assign it a moral weight equal to murder. Davis's case is weaker legally because she was a public official exercising state power. Accepting her argument could open the door to refusals for interracial or interfaith marriages on religious grounds. I doubt there are five votes to overturn Obergefell, estimating no more than two or three justices might favor it, though nothing is certain." Gene C. Schaerr, Schaerr | Jaffe LLP "It is very unlikely the Supreme Court will revisit Obergefell soon, though challenges will continue. Roberts once compared it to Dred Scott, but reliance interests are massive. Hundreds of thousands of couples have relied on it in arranging their most intimate and important life relationships. Overruling such a decision would create popular distrust in the judiciary. Justice Scalia believed in factoring reliance interests; Justice Thomas does not. The notion of destroying marriages and undoing family relationships would be extremely difficult for the Court to justify." What Happens Next For the Supreme Court to hear the case, at least four justices must agree to grant certiorari. The Court selects only a small fraction of petitions, focusing on those with significant constitutional issues or conflicting lower-court rulings.

Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody

timea day ago

Judge denies Trump administration request to end a policy protecting immigrant children in custody

McALLEN, Texas -- A federal judge ruled Friday to deny the Trump administration's request to end a policy in place for nearly three decades that is meant to protect immigrant children in federal custody. U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee in Los Angeles issued her ruling a week after holding a hearing with the federal government and legal advocates representing immigrant children in custody. Gee called last week's hearing 'déjà vu' after reminding the court of the federal government's attempt to terminate the Flores Settlement Agreement in 2019 under the first Trump administration. She repeated the sentiment in Friday's order. 'There is nothing new under the sun regarding the facts or the law. The Court therefore could deny Defendants' motion on that basis alone," Gee wrote, referring to the government's appeal to a law they believed kept the court from enforcing the agreement. In the most recent attempt, the government argued they made substantial changes since the agreement was formalized in 1997, creating standards and policies governing the custody of immigrant children that conform to legislation and the agreement. Gee acknowledged that the government made some improved conditions of confinement, but wrote, 'These improvements are direct evidence that the FSA is serving its intended purpose, but to suggest that the agreement should be abandoned because some progress has been made is nonsensical.' Attorneys representing the federal government told the court the agreement gets in the way of their efforts to expand detention space for families, even though Trump's tax and spending bill provided billions to build new immigration facilities. Tiberius Davis, one of the government attorneys, said the bill gives the government authority to hold families in detention indefinitely. 'But currently under the Flores Settlement Agreement, that's essentially void,' he said last week. The Flores agreement, named for a teenage plaintiff, was the result of over a decade of litigation between attorneys representing the rights of migrant children and the U.S. government over widespread allegations of mistreatment in the 1980s. The agreement set standards for how licensed shelters must provide food, water, adult supervision, emergency medical services, toilets, sinks, temperature control and ventilation. It also limited how long U.S. Customs and Border Protection could detain child immigrants to 72 hours. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services then takes custody of the children. The Biden administration successfully pushed to partially end the agreement last year. Gee ruled that special court supervision may end when HHS takes custody, but she carved out exceptions for certain types of facilities for children with more acute needs. In arguing against the Trump administration's effort to completely end the agreement, advocates said the government was holding children beyond the time limits. In May, CBP held 46 children for over a week, including six children held for over two weeks and four children held 19 days, according to data revealed in a court filing. In March and April, CPB reported that it had 213 children in custody for more than 72 hours. That included 14 children, including toddlers, who were held for over 20 days in April. The federal government is looking to expand its immigration detention space, including by building more centers like one in Florida dubbed ' Alligator Alcatraz,' where a lawsuit alleges detainees' constitutional rights are being violated. Gee still has not ruled on the request by legal advocates for the immigrant children to expand independent monitoring of the treatment of children held in U.S. Customs and Border Protection facilities. Currently, the agreement allows for third-party inspections at facilities in the El Paso and Rio Grande Valley regions, but plaintiffs submitted evidence showing long detention times at border facilities that violate the agreement's terms.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store