What are the constitutional arguments state legislatures use to justify restricting cooperation with ICE in schools and places of worship?
Executive summary
State legislatures justify limiting local cooperation with ICE in schools and places of worship by invoking core constitutional protections—principally the Fourth Amendment’s guard against unreasonable searches and seizures, the First Amendment’s protections for freedom of religion and expressive association, and state duties to protect access to education and public services—while also relying on precedent and federal guidance that historically treated those sites as “sensitive locations” [1] [2] [3] [4]. Opponents stress federal supremacy and note there is no blanket federal statute barring enforcement in churches or schools, so state measures are framed as defensive tools to preserve constitutional rights and public safety rather than attempts to nullify federal law [5] [6].
1. Fourth Amendment as a firewall: defending private spaces and due process
Legislatures lean heavily on the Fourth Amendment, arguing that schools and nonpublic parts of places of worship are constitutionally protected private or quasi‑private spaces where federal officers ordinarily need a judicial warrant to enter or conduct searches, and thus state employees should not facilitate warrantless immigration enforcement or share sensitive records that could lead to seizures [1] [7] [8]. Advocates point to guidance and legal resources telling school staff and administrators they can—and should—refuse entry to ICE absent a valid judicial warrant, arguing state law can codify those duties and protect students and staff from unreasonable searches and seizures [1] [7]. The countervailing reality is that federal immigration agents retain statutory authority to enforce federal law, and administrative warrants and operations in public campus spaces complicate a bright‑line rule, which critics say limits the practical reach of state restrictions [7] [8].
2. First Amendment claims: protecting worship, assembly and religious autonomy
State bills invoke the First Amendment by emphasizing that aggressive enforcement inside houses of worship chills religious exercise and congregational life and may target religious or racial communities, giving rise to constitutional challenges against incursions into sacred spaces [2]. Law reviews and civil liberties groups argue that places of worship enjoy heightened protection because enforcement actions can deter worshippers from attending services or seeking pastoral care, and state policies restricting local cooperation with ICE are presented as rational measures to prevent viewpoint‑discriminatory or religion‑targeted enforcement [2] [9]. Opponents caution that no single statute prohibits federal agents from entering houses of worship, and courts must balance First Amendment harms against federal interests in immigration enforcement [5] [9].
3. Education and equal protection: state duty to ensure access to schooling
Legislatures also ground restrictions in state constitutional duties and federal education law precedent, citing decisions like Plyler v. Doe to argue that schools must remain safe, accessible spaces where children cannot be deterred from receiving a public education by fear of immigration enforcement, and state actors can therefore limit data sharing or on‑campus assistance to ICE to uphold students’ rights [4] [6]. Proponents frame measures as necessary to prevent a chilling effect that would undermine public education, public health, and equal protection of undocumented children [4] [9]. Skeptics note that federal policy shifts and ICE’s retained discretion to operate in public campus areas mean state protections can reduce but not eliminate federal enforcement risks without broader federal change [9] [7].
4. Statutory and practical tools: sensitive‑location policies, data limits, and trust directives
Practical state arguments combine constitutional theory with statutory and policy mechanisms—establishing “sensitive locations,” banning state agencies from collecting or sharing immigration status without a court order, and strengthening local “trust” directives to prohibit state or local personnel from assisting federal operations—as ways to foreclose evidence pipelines and cooperation that facilitate enforcement inside protected settings [6] [3]. Supporters point to decades of DHS guidance identifying sensitive locations and to recent state legislative moves to enshrine similar protections into state law as legitimate exercises of state police powers to protect residents and public institutions [3] [6]. Critics and federal proponents argue such laws may provoke preemption challenges because immigration enforcement is a federal competency, and they stress courts will have to sort where state interests end and federal supremacy begins [6] [5].
5. Political framing, litigation strategy, and limits of protection
Behind legislative push is politics and litigation strategy: Democrats in multiple states have pursued laws after high‑profile enforcement incidents to create enforceable local duties and, in some cases, create private remedies against state actors who violate rights while acknowledging that suing federal officers remains limited under current law [6]. Civil liberties groups frame rescission of prior federal sensitive‑locations guidance as amplifying the need for state backstops to preserve public health and religious freedom, even as other legal observers warn that without federal statutes or supportive judicial rulings, state limits can protect against local cooperation but cannot entirely block federal agents from entering schools or houses of worship [9] [6] [5].