Can ICE enter a school? What the law says and how to prepare
A judicial warrant signed by a judge, or consent from the appropriate authority.
Miami-Dade County Public Schools policy states that no child will be allowed to speak to a law enforcement agency without parental consent or a warrant.
Yes, but only with a judicial warrant signed by a judge.
Yes. All students in Kindergarten through 12th grade are guaranteed access to a public education, regardless of immigration status.
This right is based on the 1982 Supreme Court ruling in Plyler v. Doe, which narrowly held that states cannot constitutionally deny undocumented children a free public education.
Update emergency contact at school and guardianship paperwork.
Ensure emergency contact cards are up to date with trusted family members or friends who can pick up and care for their children if they are detained. Complete a guardianship form, which legally establishes a temporary guardian for the child. The information on this form should match the emergency contact information at school. This form must be notarized but does not need to be prepared by a lawyer.
Renata Bozzetto, deputy director of the Florida Immigrant Coalition, recommends consulting with an attorney when completing the form.
Her organization offers free legal consultations every Wednesday from 3–5 p.m., both in person and via Zoom. For more information, visit the Florida Immigrant Coalition.
One of the most common ways immigrants are arrested is for driving without a license. Bozetto and other advocates suggest that school Parent Teacher Association and other parent groups create ride-sharing and carpool programs to ensure students who are at risk of detention can arrive and exit school safely, as well as get to and from after school activities such as sports or aftercare.
Here is a list of free legal service providers in Florida, courtesy of the U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for Immigration Review. This was updated July 2025.
You can use the National Immigration Legal Services Directory to search for immigration legal services providers by state, county or detention facility.
American Immigration Lawyers Association has a tool for searching for a lawyer. You can filter by location and also by language. You can also call them at 1-800-954-0254 for a referral.
All student records are protected by the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, which protects student information.
Law enforcement needs a subpoena or warrant to access student records, and even so, schools would not have any information regarding the immigration status of students.
No. It is illegal for schools to keep any record of a student's immigration status.
Experts advise that you exercise your right to stay silent, ask for a lawyer and request to see a warrant before opening the door to your home.
The Florida Rapid Response Alliance for Immigrant Safety and Empowerment created a list of recommendations for immigrants who have encounters with immigration officers.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
USA Today
39 minutes ago
- USA Today
Supreme Court isn't poised to end gay marriage, despite the media's fearmongering
This case is not likely to be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, nor is it anywhere close to ending the constitutional protections for gay marriage. A former county clerk in Kentucky has officially filed a petition to the Supreme Court, asking it to overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, the ruling that founda constitutional right to same-sex marriage. People should temper their reactions to this petition. There is no guarantee that this case will be heard, and there is no indication that the nation's highest court is likely to overturn the previous ruling. The general public has a poor understanding of how the Supreme Court, and the judicial branch in general, actually works. The court is not a partisan machine that takes cases based on the whims of the Republican Party, but rather a process-oriented institution that is very restrained. While I understand the fears that members of the LGBTQ+ community hold at the prospect of losing their right to marry, particularly in the context of the hostile cultural swing within the GOP against it, fearmongering coverage only stokes overreactions. This case is not likely to be heard by the court, nor is it anywhere close to ending the constitutional protections for gay marriage. Petitions for review are many, but Supreme Court decides few cases The Supreme Court has discretion over what cases it takes, so a petition for review does not necessarily mean that the panel will consider the issue. It takes the votes of four justices to eventually grant review in a case, which advances it to the court's docket. All of this is to say that just because a petition is filed with the Supreme Court, that doesn't mean it will eventually be heard. The vast majority are never heard. Of the more than 7,000 cases filed each year, the Supreme Court grants review in only 100-150 of them. In 2024, for example, the court ultimately ruled on just 59 cases. While legislation is by no means a complete replacement for a constitutional amendment, the constitutional right to gay marriage is rendered somewhat obsolete by the Respect for Marriage Act, the 2022 piece of bipartisan legislation that requires states to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. The odds of that legislation being overturned are extremely low, given gay marriage's popularity, even among conservatives. Thus, if the constitutional protections for gay marriage were to disappear, the practice still would most likely remain protected. The fearmongering began almost immediately But none of that stopped people from panicking at the prospect of the court considering such a case. Obviously, the partisan hacks of X immediately latched onto this story to fearmonger, but even larger news sources like ABC couldn't help themselves from dedicating feature-length articles to the topic. 'Ten years after the Supreme Court extended marriage rights to same-sex couples nationwide, the justices this fall will consider for the first time whether to take up a case that explicitly asks them to overturn that decision,' said ABC News in an X post. Despite acknowledging the fact that the case is a 'long shot' in its own article on the matter, ABC News chose to frame this piece in this manner because it sensationalizes the potential for Obergefell to be overturned, with little indication that this is not an impending event. Other news sources were far more honest in their framing, but ABC News' post is irresponsible because it capitalizes on a massive problem in American civic education. Others, including USA TODAY, have tied it to President Donald Trump's position, while highlighting that the case is unlikely to succeed. Supreme Court literacy is important, but it's currently lacking At the moment, gay marriage is extremely safe going into the future. So, what is all the worry about? As it stands, very few Americans understand the judicial processes that lead to a case being considered by the Supreme Court. Even many who are otherwise rather politically intelligent understand very little about how the Supreme Court operates. The typical American comically knows little about the Supreme Court, from basic facts like the number of justices to the branch of government the court is housed within. Americans who have a limited understanding of this information naturally have little business understanding the meaning of a petition for certiorari or how precedent is overturned. Partisan sources are aware of this and capitalize on it. Democratic groups have already begun to incorporate the mere fact that someone has petitioned the court to review such a decision. I've written previously about how people's views of the court are far too simplistic, and that is an interconnected problem with this one. People do not understand the dynamic of the court well enough to actually make judgments beyond the partisan talking points. People naturally assume that the conservative majority Supreme Court will always rule in favor of conservative social outcomes, but the justices have proved that's not the case. Sources like the ABC News article may not be malicious, but their potential for harm is still great. America has a problem with civic education when it comes to the Supreme Court, but an honest news media has a responsibility to be conscious of framing court stories in relation to the public's knowledge. Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA TODAY and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.
CBS News
6 hours ago
- CBS News
Cyclist claims Miami Beach police unfairly arrested him after cruiser incident
A 55-year-old cyclist said he was unfairly arrested and charged with two felonies after placing his hands on a police cruiser during an operation on Ocean Drive. Vladimir Tovar, an engineer from Miami, faces charges of disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. According to the arrest report, Tovar "intentionally struck" the cruiser hard enough to cause dents "approximately four to five times" before ignoring commands to stop. "I put my hand (on) the police car," Tovar said after bonding out of jail Friday morning. Tovar said he rode his bicycle into Miami Beach Thursday evening. On Ocean Drive, he rolled past undercover officers preparing to arrest people involved in illegal sales. During the operation, officers requested a cruiser nearby to keep everyone safe, a Miami Beach Police Department spokesman said. The cruiser was partially in the bike lane when cameras recorded Tovar approaching. "A cyclist traveling northbound reportedly struck the marked police vehicle intentionally before fleeing the area despite a sergeant's lawful directive to stop," MBPD Public Information Officer Christopher Bess said in a statement. "The cyclist was subsequently located and arrested." Tovar insists he did nothing wrong. He said video shows another cyclist approaching him as he neared the cruiser. He claims he put his hand on the vehicle to keep his balance while avoiding the other cyclist and barriers in the street. "The first hand (on the cruiser) was to stop," Tovar said. "The second hand (was) to (not) fall down. I just (tried) to stop." Tovar also expressed frustration with how officers treated him after his arrest. "It's crazy," he said. "At the Miami Beach detention center, they sent me to a little jail with people with mental problems. Then, they put me in a van with nine people with 90 degrees outside like you see people at the border." "How can I explain this to my 17-year-old son?" he asked. Tovar said he plans to fight the charges.
Yahoo
7 hours ago
- Yahoo
Grants Pass to provide 150 camping spaces, $60k in services after disability rights suit
The city of Grants Pass, which gained national attention for its practice of punishing homeless people for camping outside, has agreed to provide at least 150 spaces for individuals to do so. (Ben Botkin/Oregon Capital Chronicle) A southern Oregon city that gained national attention for its practice of punishing homeless people for camping outside has agreed to provide at least 150 spaces for individuals to do so after a lawsuit alleged its practices discriminated against disabled individuals. The city of Grants Pass won a major U.S. Supreme Court case in June 2024, reversing an earlier appeals court ruling that a city ordinance barring homeless people from using blankets, pillows or cardboard while sleeping outside violated the U.S. Constitution's protections against cruel and unusual punishment. That Supreme Court ruling cleared the way for more stringent restrictions on homeless individuals in the West, but in Oregon, a state law only allows cities to regulate sleeping outside if those regulations are 'objectively reasonable' to time, place and manner. Grants Pass responded by passing ordinances that allow people to stay in designated areas only between 5 p.m. and 7 a.m. and to remove tents or other supplies each morning or face a $75 citation. Disability rights advocates and five homeless individuals sued, and the city reached a settlement this month. The settlement says the city will offer at least 150 units of camping spaces for homeless individuals. The city must also provide drinking water at any approved camping sites, and the property must be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act for the next year. 'Oregon can't arrest its way out of homelessness, and we are pleased the city has committed to developing more humane and legally compliant approaches to this public health crisis,' said Jake Cornett, executive director and CEO of the Portland-based Disability Rights Oregon, in a statement. 'This settlement represents a significant step forward in ensuring people with disabilities experiencing homelessness have places to rest, basic necessities like drinking water and real opportunity to stabilize their lives.' The city had limited homeless people to stay and sleep in just one site with about 30 tents at any given time, prompting concerns about overcrowding and a lack of drinking water. In January, local officials closed another site with space for about 120 tents. Disability Rights Oregon and the Oregon Law Center cited Oregon's anti-discrimination law for disabled individuals in their January lawsuit. They won a two-week temporary restraining order in February prohibiting the city from enforcing penalties and restricting camping to the city's one site for tents. Since then, Circuit Court Judge Sarah E. McGlaughlin has ordered the city to halt enforcement of its ordinances against homeless encampments until the city restored capacity for 150 tents, exempting several parks from her mandate. The city and plaintiffs have agreed that the additional capacity for campaign will be on property owned by the city or operated by a third-party city contractor, according to the settlement. The city will also install shade at drinking facilities and award a $60,000 grant to a local nonprofit to provide services for homeless residents. The facility receiving the money must have bathrooms. The lawsuit launched by disability rights advocates was driven by stories of homeless people with chronic pain and health conditions being forced to constantly move their belongings and lives every day in the city. One such case involves 57-year-old Janine Harris, who suffers from arthritis, vertigo and chronic headaches. She previously told the Capital Chronicle that her health problems made her give up a job as a caregiver and she has been homeless for four years. She has to collect her belongings in a wagon she carries around. 'Being homeless is really hard on a person's body, especially if you have physical disabilities,'Harris wrote in a court declaration. 'I just want everyone to know that a lot of people who are living outside are people, just like them, who are doing their best to get by.' In a statement following the settlement, Allison Nasson, a staff attorney at the Oregon Law Center, cautioned against policies mandating homeless residents continuously relocate. 'Requiring people to 'move along' everyday doesn't get people into housing, it just makes life harder and more dangerous,' she wrote. 'When you have been forced to live outside, you still need water, a bathroom, and a place to rest.' Grants Pass City Manager Aaron Cubic did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Under the agreement, the city will also pay $85,000 to Disability Rights Oregon, allowing it to forgo any further obligation to pay legal fees. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX Solve the daily Crossword
