Kansas City schools look to Supreme Court ruling to protect undocumented students from ICE
The U.S. Supreme Court's Plyler v. Doe decision in 1982 guarantees the right of undocumented immigrant children to attend K-12 public schools (Getty Images).
Students began asking questions soon after President Donald Trump took office.
'How old do I have to be to adopt my siblings?' an area student asked a teacher, worried that their parents could be deported.
'Can I attend school virtually?' asked another student, reasoning that they would be safer from being targeted by immigration agents if they studied online at home.
A straight-A student from a South American country stunned and saddened her teacher by saying, 'So when are they going to send me back?'
'Can I borrow a laminator?' asked another, who wanted to make a stack of 'Know Your Rights' flyers sturdier. High schoolers have been passing the guides out, informing people what to do if stopped and questioned about immigration status.
Trump campaigned on a vow to deport millions of undocumented immigrants, boasting of mass deportations.
What that might mean for the children of targeted immigrants, or whether they would be rounded up, has been the subject of speculation, rumor and fear.
In early March, the Trump administration began detaining families at a Texas center, with the intention of deporting the children and adults together.
Kansas City area school districts are responding, training teachers and staff on protocols in case immigration agents try to enter a school and sending notices to parents.
'Not every school district, not every charter school, not every private school, has addressed the issue,' said Christy J. Moreno with Revolución Educativa, a Kansas City nonprofit advocating for Latinos' educational success.
Parents in some local schools have had their fears calmed through district communication.
'There have been some districts that have been a little bit more public about their stance on this, but in general terms, they're not being very public,' said Moreno, an advocacy and impact officer. 'It's because of all the executive orders and the fear that federal funding will be taken away.'
Indeed, when asked to comment, most area districts declined or pointed to district policy posted online.
Immigrant children's right to attend public school, K-12, is constitutionally protected.
A 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision, Plyler v. Doe, guarantees it regardless of immigration status.
The Plyler ruling also ensures that schools do not ask the immigration status of children as they enroll, something that area districts have emphasized in communication to parents.
The Shawnee Mission School District relies on policies that are the responsibility of building administrators if any external agency, such as law enforcement, requests access to or information about a student.
'We strongly believe that every child deserves free and unfettered access to a quality public education, regardless of immigration status,' said David A. Smith, chief communications officer, in a statement. 'While we cannot control the actions of others, we can control how we respond.'
Schools were once understood to be off limits for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Schools were considered to be 'sensitive places,' along with hospitals and places of worship.
Trump rescinded that nearly 14-year-old policy by executive order immediately upon taking office in January.
In February, the Denver Public Schools sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, arguing that the schools' duty to educate students was hindered by the change.
Students were missing school out of fear, the Colorado educators said. And administrators and teachers were forced to redirect resources to train staff on how to react in case immigration agents entered school grounds.
On March 7, a federal judge sided with Homeland Security in denying the injunction.
The ruling gleaned some clarity for schools, with the government noting that the current policy requires 'some level of approval on when to conduct an action' in a school.
But that guardrail doesn't negate anxieties, the judge acknowledged.
In the Kansas City area, one mother, with two children in public school, indicated that her district's support was too hesitant.
'I know that the districts at this time have not come out in support of immigrant families in these difficult times,' she said. 'They are just being very diplomatic, saying that education comes first.'
Plyler v. Doe isn't as universally understood as Brown v. Board of Education.
The U.S. Supreme Court case guaranteeing immigrant children's right to a public K-12 education is a landmark decision, said Rebeca Shackleford, director of federal government relations for All4Ed, a national nonprofit advocating for educational equity.
'Kids are losing out already, even though they still have their right to this education,' Shackleford said. 'There are kids who are not in school today because their parents are holding them back.'
The class-action case originated in Texas.
In 1975, the state legislature said school districts could deny enrollment to children who weren't 'legally admitted' into the U.S., withholding state funds for those children's education.
Two years later, the Tyler district decided to charge $1,000 tuition to Mexican students who couldn't meet the legally admitted requirement. James Plyler was the superintendent of the Tyler Independent School District.
The case was brought by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
Lower courts ruled for the children and their parents, noting that the societal costs of not educating the children outweighed the state's harm. The lower courts also ruled the state could not preempt federal immigration law.
Eventually the case was taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, which in 1982 upheld the rights of the students to receive a K-12 education, 5-4, citing the 14th Amendment's equal-protection clause.
'By denying these children a basic education,' the court said, 'we deny them the ability to live within the structure of our civic institutions, and foreclose any realistic possibility that they will contribute in even the smallest way to the progress of our Nation.'
The court also said that holding children accountable for their parents' actions 'does not comport with fundamental conceptions of justice.'
There have been efforts by state legislatures to challenge the ruling.
In 2011, Alabama saw a dramatic drop in Latino student attendance, even among U.S.-born children, when the state ordered districts to determine the immigration status of students as they enrolled.
The law was later permanently blocked by a federal court.
Tennessee is currently debating passage of a law similar to the Texas law that led to the Plyler ruling.
The proposed law would allow districts to charge undocumented students tuition, and would require districts to check the legal status of students as they enrolled.
The bill recently passed out of an education committee.
The chilling effect of such proposals, like current calls for mass deportations, can be widespread for children, advocates said.
'How can you learn if you're worried about whether or not your parents are going to be home when you get home from school?' Shackleford said.
Teachers nationwide are seeing the impact as students worry for themselves, their parents and friends.
'I think sometimes we forget that the words that we use as adults and the messages that we send are affecting our kids,' Shackleford, a former teacher, said. 'And no one feels that more than teachers and classroom educators, because they're right there in the rooms and hearing this and seeing the pain of their students.'
Voids in information leave room for misinformation, which is quickly spread by social media.
Local advocates for immigrant rights have been tamping down rumors about raids, especially in regard to schools.
There have not been any reported incidents involving ICE agents inside or on local K-12 school grounds.
But in February, a man was detained near a Kansas City school, presumably as he was getting ready to drop a child off for the day's lessons.
Homeland Security officials arrested a man they said had previously been deported. Staff of the Guadalupe Centers Elementary & Pre-K School acted quickly, escorting the child into the building.
For districts, managing communications can be a balance.
North Kansas City Schools began getting questions from parents about ICE and Customs and Border Protection early this year.
On Jan. 24, the district sent a notice to parents emphasizing policies that had been in place for several years.
'In general, law enforcement has the same limited level of access to student records as members of the public with no special permissions,' according to the notice. 'Law enforcement agents are not permitted to speak with nor interact with students without a valid subpoena, court order or explicit parent permission unless it's an emergency situation.'
Kansas City Public Schools Superintendent Jennifer Collier addressed immigration in a late January board meeting.
Collier said that work had begun 'behind the scenes' after Trump rescinded the sensitive-places policy.
'What we didn't want to do was to get out front and begin to alarm everybody, to create anxiety,' Collier said, noting the 'feelings of heaviness and in some cases feelings of hopelessness.'
All staff would be trained, including legal and security teams, in identifying valid court orders or warrants.
She emphasized the emotional well-being of students. And the district has posted guidance online.
'We're going to make it to the other side of this,' Collier told her board. 'So hold on. Don't lose hope.'
This article first appeared on Beacon: Kansas City and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
NY pols join Clintons at St. Patrick's Cathedral to honor late longtime Dem Rep. Charlie Rangel: ‘He was a giant'
New York politicians — including Gov. Kathy Hochul and Mayor Eric Adams — flocked to St. Patrick's Cathedral Friday to honor late longtime Democratic Rep. Charlie Rangel. Rangel — a Harlem political institution who died May 26 at the age of 94 — was remembered during a memorial service at the iconic Midtown cathedral. 'Charlie was a giant,' Hochul told the room of political bigwigs. Advertisement 6 Rep. Charles Rangel passed away last week at the age of 94. Getty Images 'He wanted to use the power of his position to do good for others,' she said. 'He put a glaring spotlight on his beloved Harlem and other communities that needed help.' Advertisement 6 Rangel was honored last week in City Hall by Mayor Eric Adams. Ed Reed/Mayoral Photography Office. 6 Rangel's funeral was held at St. Patrick's Cathedral in Manhattan. REUTERS Hochul announced that she was working with Adams to immortalize the late congressman with a prominent street in Harlem that would be named 'Charlie Rangel Way.' The crowd of about 500 mourners in attendance included Bill and Hillary Clinton, Sen. Chuck Schumer, State Attorney General Tish James, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and more than 20 US Congress members. Advertisement Rangel's casket was led into the church by military guards and his family, including his two adult children. Schumer delivered heartfelt remarks about his longtime colleague, who served four different congressional districts in his 46 years of service. 6 Many political figures attended, including the Clintons, Gov. Kathy Hochul, and Sen. Chuck Schumer. AP 6 New York political leaders, State Attorney General Tish James, and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, were also in attendance for Rangel's funeral. AP Advertisement 6 Gov. Hochul announced that a street in Harlem will be renamed in his honor to 'Charlie Rangel Way.' AP 'Whenever you lose a loved one, especially one so dear as Charlie is to all of us … you never know what quality of theirs will stand out as you look back,' the New York Democrat said. 'For me, with Charlie, it was his voice. I think of Charlie and hearing echoing around in my head and my heart.' Prior to Friday's service, Rangel's casket lay in state at City Hall for two days of public viewing. The so-called Lion of Lenox Ave was elected to Congress in 1970 after challenging incumbent civil-rights leader Adam Clayton Powell Jr. for his Harlem seat. Keep up with today's most important news Stay up on the very latest with Evening Update. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Rangel was a part of the neighborhood's legendary African-American political coalition, the 'Gang of Four.' The powerful crew also included Mayor David Dinkins, Manhattan Borough President Percy Sutton and state Sen. Basil Paterson. Advertisement The mark Rangel left on Harlem was a through-line of Friday's service, with speakers praising the pride and adoration he had for his neighborhood. 'America is better off today because of his service,' said Jeffries, who leads the House Democratic Caucus as Rangel once did. 'A lot can be said— Charlie Rangel was a good man. A family man. A well educated man. A well dressed man. An Alpha man. An Army man. A community man. A courageous man. A compassionate man. A heroic man. A humorous man. A hard working man,' the New York congressman said. 'Above all else, he was a Harlem Man.'
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Federal judge blocks Trump's firing of Consumer Product Safety Commission members
Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued the case was clearcut. Federal statute states that the president can fire commissioners 'for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause' — allegations that have not been made against the commissioners in question. Advertisement But attorneys for the Trump administration assert that the statute is unconstitutional because the president's authority extends to dismissing federal employees who 'exercise significant executive power,' according to court filings. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox agreed with the plaintiffs, declaring their dismissals unlawful. He had previously denied their request for a temporary restraining order, which would have reinstated them on an interim basis. That decision came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority declined to reinstate board members of two other independent agencies, endorsing a robust view of presidential power. The court said that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members 'without cause.' Its three liberal justices dissented. Advertisement In his written opinion filed Friday, Maddox presented a more limited view of the president's authority, finding 'no constitutional defect' in the statute that prohibits such terminations. He ordered that the plaintiffs be allowed to resume their duties as product safety commissioners. The ruling adds to a larger ongoing legal battle over a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president. During a hearing before Maddox last week, arguments focused largely on the nature of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and its powers, specifically whether it exercises 'substantial executive authority.' Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted the difficulty of cleanly characterizing such functions. He also noted that Trump was breaking from precedent by firing the three commissioners, rather than following the usual process of making his own nominations when the opportunity arose. Abigail Stout, an attorney representing the Trump administration, argued that any restrictions on the president's removal power would violate his constitutional authority. After Trump announced the Democrats' firings, four Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the president urging him to reverse course. 'This move compromises the ability of the federal government to apply data-driven product safety rules to protect Americans nationwide, away from political influence,' they wrote. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms. Advertisement That structure ensures that each president has 'the opportunity to influence, but not control,' the commission, attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission's independence. Attorney Nick Sansone, who represents the three commissioners, praised the ruling Friday. 'Today's opinion reaffirms that the President is not above the law,' he said in a statement.
Los Angeles Times
2 hours ago
- Los Angeles Times
Federal judge blocks Trump's firing of Consumer Product Safety Commission members
BALTIMORE — A federal judge has blocked the terminations of three Democratic members of the Consumer Product Safety Commission after they were fired by President Trump in his effort to assert more power over independent federal agencies. The commission helps protect consumers from dangerous products by issuing recalls, suing errant companies and more. Trump announced last month his decision to fire the three Democrats on the five-member commission. They were serving seven-year terms after being nominated by President Biden. After suing the Trump administration last month, the fired commissioners received a ruling in their favor Friday; it will likely be appealed. Attorneys for the plaintiffs argued the case was clearcut. Federal statute states that the president can fire commissioners 'for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office but for no other cause' — allegations that have not been made against the commissioners in question. But attorneys for the Trump administration assert that the statute is unconstitutional because the president's authority extends to dismissing federal employees who 'exercise significant executive power,' according to court filings. U.S. District Judge Matthew Maddox agreed with the plaintiffs, declaring their dismissals unlawful. He had previously denied their request for a temporary restraining order, which would have reinstated them on an interim basis. That decision came just days after the U.S. Supreme Court's conservative majority declined to reinstate board members of two other independent agencies, endorsing a robust view of presidential power. The court said that the Constitution appears to give the president the authority to fire the board members 'without cause.' Its three liberal justices dissented. In his written opinion filed Friday, Maddox presented a more limited view of the president's authority, finding 'no constitutional defect' in the statute that prohibits such terminations. He ordered that the plaintiffs be allowed to resume their duties as product safety commissioners. The ruling adds to a larger ongoing legal battle over a 90-year-old Supreme Court decision known as Humphrey's Executor. In that case from 1935, the court unanimously held that presidents cannot fire independent board members without cause. The decision ushered in an era of powerful independent federal agencies charged with regulating labor relations, employment discrimination, the airwaves and much else. But it has long rankled conservative legal theorists who argue the modern administrative state gets the Constitution all wrong because such agencies should answer to the president. During a hearing before Maddox last week, arguments focused largely on the nature of the Consumer Product Safety Commission and its powers, specifically whether it exercises 'substantial executive authority.' Maddox, a Biden nominee, noted the difficulty of cleanly characterizing such functions. He also noted that Trump was breaking from precedent by firing the three commissioners, rather than following the usual process of making his own nominations when the opportunity arose. Abigail Stout, an attorney representing the Trump administration, argued that any restrictions on the president's removal power would violate his constitutional authority. After Trump announced the Democrats' firings, four Democratic U.S. senators sent a letter to the president urging him to reverse course. 'This move compromises the ability of the federal government to apply data-driven product safety rules to protect Americans nationwide, away from political influence,' they wrote. The Consumer Product Safety Commission was created in 1972. Its five members must maintain a partisan split, with no more than three representing the president's party. They serve staggered terms. That structure ensures that each president has 'the opportunity to influence, but not control,' the commission, attorneys for the plaintiffs wrote in court filings. They argued the recent terminations could jeopardize the commission's independence. Attorney Nick Sansone, who represents the three commissioners, praised the ruling Friday. 'Today's opinion reaffirms that the President is not above the law,' he said in a statement. Skene writes for the Associated Press.
