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 Sac?

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, as well as a conversation with principal Fisk.

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

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. It is accessibly written, and two pages long. I encourage everyone to read it 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 (generally the principal) and a set of designees who are authorized to respond to immigration authority requests for entry. At Sacajawea, these people are principal Fisk and the front office staff.
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.

Finally, 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 K-12 schools?

As of January 21, 2025, schools no longer hold the “sensitive space” designation that previously protected them from most immigration enforcement activities.

I recently attended a Northwest Immigrant Rights Project (NWIRP) webinar focused on ICE interactions in K-12 settings. The recording is available in English or Spanish. The webinar emphasized that immigration enforcement officers have different authority in public vs. private spaces, including the public vs. private areas of schools.

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 authority to approach and question any individual (NWIRP recommends that individuals not answer questions).

In order to 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 also noted that running can be construed as probable cause for a warrantless arrest.

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 legal 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 at Sac

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

I’m not a lawyer, but it seems very likely that any area outside of Sac’s playground fences would be considered public. ICE probably does not need SPS permission to approach people on the sidewalk or streets, or in the park adjacent to the playground.

It also seems likely that the interior of Sacajawea would be considered private, given the door locks, buzzed entry system, and yellow SPS security signs on the doors.

Our playgrounds are arguably our most ambiguous spaces. Public access to them is different during vs. outside of school hours. Trainings that I attended indicated 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.

If there are any lawyers out there who would like to advise about whether adding signage to the fence gates might offer stronger legal protections, I’d love to hear from you! I can be reached at advocacy@sacpta.org.

Little Sac, Big World

ICE Protections at Sacajawea

SPS policies governing potential ICE interactions

What is ICE legally authorized to do in K-12 schools?

ICE authority in public spaces

ICE authority in private spaces

Public vs. private spaces at Sac

Further reading & resources

Broader SPS policies regarding immigration enforcement

General ICE defense information

Sacajawea PTA

Upcoming Events

We Need Your Help!