Issue 13 -- ICE Protections on SPS Campuses

Julie Letchner

21 Jan 2026 — 6 min read

John Stanford Center for Educational Excellent (SPS HQ). Flickr photo by javacolleen

Immigration enforcement activity has ramped up across the country in recent months. Though Seattle has not been specifically targeted in the same way as other cities, Seattle-area immigration arrests have more than doubled since Trump took office.

A well-documented incident of ICE officers executing violent arrests on school property in Minneapolis earlier this month brought sharp focus to a question already simmering in the minds of many parents: What protections are in place for our own kids at SPS?

In this post, I’ve put together an overview of my understanding of student protections. I’m not a lawyer and this is not legal advice. My understanding has been informed by the resources I link throughout, a conversation with the principal at my neighborhood’s elementary school, and a brief exchange with staff at the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP).

Let’s get to it! Below, you’ll find:

SPS policies governing potential ICE interactions
What is ICE legally authorized to do in K-12 schools?
Further reading & resources

SPS policies governing potential ICE interactions on campus

In January 2025, SPS adopted Superintendent Procedure 4310SP.B which outlines limitations on immigration enforcement at Seattle Public Schools.

Section IV focuses specifically on what school administrators should do if immigration enforcement comes to campus. This section is accessibly written, and two pages long. I encourage readers to read it in full for yourself.

Much of the policy focuses on how SPS grants or denies entry to immigration officers. The policy leverages the fact that ICE authority is more limited in private spaces (more on this later).

The key bits of policy guiding entry decisions are:

Authorized designees will interact with ICE:

Each school site has a school leader and a set of designees who are authorized to respond to immigration authority requests for entry.

Local preparedness opportunity: Ask your school leader (generally the principal) who the designees are for your local school, and verify that they are familiar with the SPS policy for what to do if ICE requests entry.

Legal counsel makes the entry decision, and they require a valid judicial warrant:

The decision about whether to grant entry permission does not fall to the discretion of on-site staff members; it belongs to SPS legal counsel.

The default SPS position is to disallow entry without a judicial warrant.

To that end, school site designees are directed by the policy to collect relevant info (including officer ID and a copy of the warrant), and pass it to legal counsel for review. Legal counsel is in turn directed to verify the warrant, and not to grant entry permission without it. On-site staff are directed not to admit entry to immigration officers until directed to do so by legal counsel.

The SPS policy also outlines what should happen after ICE is or isn’t granted entry:

When entry is granted:

When immigration enforcement is granted entry, designated staff are directed to request to be present during any interview between a student and an immigration officer.

When entry is denied:

On-site designated staff are directed to inform immigration officers of the decision and ask them to leave. If the officers do not comply, staff should not physically interfere with enforcement activity, but should notify SPS security.

It is important to recognize the reality that immigration officers might not comply with a legitimate directive to leave campus. In the event that officers do not comply, the lack of entry permission is still important because it may offer increased post-arrest legal protections to individuals detained inside.

The SPS policy also instructs staff to notify parents/guardians of any immigration enforcement activity at school concerning their student.

What is ICE legally authorized to do in schools?

What follows is our best understanding of normal legal rules and guidelines covering ICE activity. Please be aware that ICE does not always respect these rules and has been known to violate its own procedures and our rights. It is still important to assert our basic rights and attempt to hold ICE to these rules.

On January 21, 2025, Donald Trump removed the “sensitive space” designation that previously protected schools from most immigration enforcement activities.

Immigration enforcement officers have different authority in public vs. private spaces, including in the public vs. private areas of public schools. NWIRP recently outlined ICE’s varying authority in a webinar focused on ICE interactions in K-12 settings, which is summarized here. Recordings are available in English or Spanish.

The personal rights of students, staff, and community are at their strongest in private areas, and at their weakest in public ones. The key differences relate to the conditions under which ICE can legally enter a particular space, and the conditions under which ICE can detain an individual in that space.

ICE authority in public spaces

In public, immigration authorities have the legal authority to approach and question any individual (NWIRP recommends that individuals not answer questions).

In order to legally arrest an individual in public, ICE officers must have one of the following:

An administrative warrant for the individual (note that this is different from a judicial warrant; read more about different warrant types here), or
A reasonable suspicion that the individual is in the country illegally

The NWIRP training acknowledged that the evidence for reasonable suspicion–also called “probable cause”– has been extremely low in recent months. They noted that running from an agent can be construed as probable cause. In practice, ICE may simply assert any or no reason at all for “reasonable suspicion.”

ICE authority in private spaces

For private spaces, there are certain conditions that must be met in order for ICE to have legal authority to enter. Separately, there are conditions that must be met in order for ICE to have the authority to detain (arrest) someone.

To enter a private space, ICE must have one of:

A judicial warrant (note that this is not the same as an administrative warrant), or
Permission to access the space

To arrest an individual in a private space, ICE must have one of:

A judicial warrant, or
Permission to access the space, and a reasonable suspicion that an individual is in the country illegally. Again, the bar for establishing probable cause is very low.

Public vs. private spaces on SPS campuses

In the context of schools, the designation of public vs. private space can be ambiguous.

It is likely that an area easily accessed by anyone would be considered public, unless clearly marked otherwise. ICE probably does not need SPS permission to approach people on the sidewalk or streets adjoining schools, or in publicly-accessible lobbies of SPS buildings.

It also seems likely that the interiors of many SPS schools would be considered private, given the door locks, buzzer-based entry systems, and security signs on the doors. Certainly, the SPS entry policy assumes that staff have the right to turn immigration enforcement away from such spaces without a judicial warrant–a right that they only have in private spaces.

Every building site is different, though. Playgrounds can be especially ambiguous, as can parking lots, or any space that is on SPS property but is not physically separated from public areas. A space’s private status may be different during school hours vs. afterward, or during public events hosted inside a school building.

NWIRP resources indicate that, under some conditions, spaces that are otherwise public can be designated “private” via signage. Parking lots were the most commonly cited example of this.

Local preparedness opportunity: Consult with your local community and district staff (and probably a lawyer) to determine whether your school campus has areas where adding signage designating private areas might make a legal difference. Even if signage doesn’t deter officers in the moment, its presence may bolster the legal defense options available to detained individuals afterward.

Rights vs. realities

In reality, the actions of immigration enforcement officers may not always align with the legal limitations on those actions.

Recent reports from Minneapolis, for example, indicate that agents are detaining people with no apparent probable cause. ICE officers are reportedly being trained to follow the guidance of a memo that asserts ICE’s right to enter private spaces without a judicial warrant.

When law enforcement officers and/or courtroom officials don’t enforce the protection of individual rights, the protective power of these rights is eroded. At-risk individuals and bystanders alike must make their own risk assessments for both physical and legal safety when interacting with ICE, regardless of what their personal legal and constitutional rights may be.

In cases where ICE actions violate individual rights in the moment of a confrontation or detention, the presence of these legal rights may still strengthen an individual’s legal defense afterward.