People’s Commissioners Court Urges Fwisd to Bar ICE Agents Without Warrant and Superintendent Consent

(FORT WORTH, TEXAS) — A proposed campus-entry protocol in the Fort Worth Independent School District (FWISD) would standardize what front-office staff do if ICE agents seek access to a school, aiming to protect students, reduce disruption, and ensure the district documents and routes any law-enforcement contact through top leadership.

The immediate push is coming from the People’s Commissioners Court, a community-led oversight body in Tarrant County. The group is asking FWISD to adopt a policy that would bar ICE agents from entering campuses unless agents present a judicial warrant and obtain written permission from the superintendent, with immediate parent/guardian notification when an inquiry involves a student.

In plain language, “barring ICE access without a judicial warrant and superintendent permission” means: school staff would not treat an ICE request like routine visitor access. Instead, staff would require court-signed paperwork and a documented approval decision before allowing entry beyond public areas.

Schools have become a flashpoint because family fears about immigration enforcement can affect attendance and student engagement. District leaders also face competing duties: campus safety, student privacy, and compliance with lawful orders.

1) Overview and the current Fort Worth development

The People’s Commissioners Court’s request is not itself a binding legal order on FWISD. It is a public call for a district policy change.

The proposal was presented locally on Jan. 27, 2026, urging FWISD to move from general “welcoming” language to a concrete, repeatable entry protocol.

For families, the process matters because it can shape whether a campus response is calm and consistent. For staff, it matters because a clear protocol reduces improvisation during high-stress encounters.

For administrators, it helps preserve a record of what was requested, what documents were shown, and who approved any access.

2) Federal messaging being cited, and why statements still matter

Local debate is also being shaped by federal messaging. As described in DHS public communications, a DHS spokesperson announced on Jan. 21, 2025 that DHS rescinded the prior “protected areas” approach, which had discouraged certain enforcement actions at “sensitive” locations.

Separately, DHS leadership statements have been cited in public discussions about school access and enforcement posture. Those include a statement attributed to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem dated Jan. 20, 2026, and a statement attributed to Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin dated Jan. 21, 2026.

Public statements can influence behavior even when they do not change the law. A quote in a newsroom release is not the same as a statute, regulation, or binding court order.

Still, districts often respond to shifts in enforcement posture by tightening visitor-management procedures and clarifying who makes decisions.

Key distinction: federal agencies can announce priorities, but day-to-day school entry still often turns on paperwork, local protocols, and whether access is sought to public space or deeper inside the campus.

3) The proposed FWISD campus-entry protocol, step by step

Below is the process families and staff typically want a school district to put in writing. It reflects the key elements advocates are urging FWISD to adopt.

1. Initial contact at the front office
   • What it accomplishes: limits disruption and keeps students away from an unfolding interaction.
   • Documents staff should request immediately: government photo ID and agency credentials.
   • Operational note: staff should keep the interaction in a controlled area.
2. Determine what the agent is asking to do
   • Is ICE seeking: (a) campus entry, (b) access to a student, (c) records, or (d) information about a family?
   • Records may trigger privacy rules. Student education records are generally governed by FERPA (a federal education privacy law). District counsel often handles those requests.
3. Route the request to designated administrators
   • The proposed approach emphasizes that staff should not make on-the-spot legal calls.
   • Documentation to create: a written log of the time, names, badge numbers, and the request.
4. Superintendent authorization (“written permission”)
   • “Written permission” implies a documented approval by the superintendent or an expressly authorized designee.
   • Where it is kept: districts commonly retain it with incident reports and legal files.
5. Evaluate the warrant type
   • A judicial warrant is signed by a judge and typically identifies the place to be searched or the person to be seized.
   • Administrative immigration paperwork is often signed by an agency official, not a judge. It may not grant the same authority to enter nonpublic school areas without consent.
   • Districts often treat this as a decision point: allow entry, limit access, or deny entry pending proper paperwork.
6. Parent/guardian notification if a student is involved
   • “Immediate notice” may mean phone call plus written follow-up.
   • Common exceptions districts consider: court-ordered nondisclosure, safety risks, or instructions from counsel where permitted by law.
7. Minimize student impact
   • Even if entry is authorized, districts often try to reduce stigma and trauma. They may move discussions away from classrooms and keep students supervised.

Warning: Do not rely on verbal assurances from any official—ask for documents, record names, and route requests through administrators and counsel.

4) What FWISD already has, and why advocates say it is not enough

FWISD currently operates under a 2017 “Welcoming and Safe” resolution. Resolutions often signal values and goals, but they may not specify who does what when ICE agents arrive at a campus.

Advocates argue that a general resolution can be too vague in today’s environment. The concern is inconsistent campus practice: one principal may demand strict documentation, while another may allow access based on credentials alone.

Reports of enforcement activity near bus stops or school-adjacent areas can also affect trust. Even without on-campus incidents, families may keep children home. Staff may become hesitant to report concerns if they fear it could expose families.

5) Why paperwork is the legal pressure point: judicial vs. administrative warrants

This debate centers on warrants and authority.

A judicial warrant is issued by a court. It is typically what school districts look for before allowing entry into nonpublic areas or facilitating access to a person.

An administrative warrant in the immigration context is agency-issued paperwork. Form I-205 is identified as the administrative warrant discussed in a May 12, 2025 ICE memorandum signed by Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, described as authorizing administrative warrants for certain home arrests.

That memo is part of the broader enforcement backdrop, but it does not eliminate constitutional constraints or local facility protocols. District policies cannot “override” federal law. They also cannot obstruct lawful court orders.

But districts generally may set access protocols for their facilities, including: requiring requests be routed to leadership, requiring documentation review, limiting contact with students absent proper legal authority, and documenting every step.

For immigration relief and enforcement context, federal statutes and regulations that often arise in family conversations include asylum (INA § 208), withholding of removal (INA § 241(b)(3)), and the broader immigration court framework under EOIR. Removal proceedings are governed by INA provisions and implementing regulations in 8 C.F.R. Parts 1003 and 1240, among others.

Warning: A school policy is not an immigration “shield.” It is a procedure. It may affect how access is handled, not whether enforcement exists.

6) High-profile incidents, state responses, and why districts codify procedures

National incidents and allegations—especially those involving families and children—can accelerate local policy proposals. Even when facts are disputed or under investigation, community fear can rise quickly.

States have also moved in different directions. Measures in places like California and Illinois are often framed as limiting routine cooperation or structuring how public employees respond to immigration enforcement activity. Those efforts can influence how Texas communities debate what schools should do.

School districts typically respond by writing down procedures rather than relying on informal “we’ll handle it” practices. Clear protocols can protect staff from making legal judgments alone and can create consistent, documented decision-making.

7) Effects on students and families: attendance, health, and uncertainty

District leaders across the country have reported that fear of enforcement activity can reduce attendance and strain student mental health. That can mean missed instruction, reduced access to school-based healthcare supports, and increased anxiety.

A recurring problem is document confusion. Families and staff may not be able to tell a judicial warrant from agency paperwork in the moment. Districts can reduce uncertainty by training staff to (1) request documents, (2) avoid consent-based entry into nonpublic areas without review, and (3) call designated administrators and counsel.

“Legal uncertainty” for schools often means balancing four obligations at once: campus safety, compliance with lawful orders, student privacy, and community trust.

Deadline: If FWISD considers a new policy, the timing often turns on board agendas, committee calendars, and superintendent guidance memos. Families should watch meeting postings closely.

8) How to verify what actually applies in Fort Worth

To confirm what is real and current in FWISD, focus on verifiable documents and official postings.

Step-by-step verification checklist

1. Confirm whether FWISD adopted a formal policy
   • Look for a board-adopted policy, not only a resolution.
   • Check board agendas and minutes for votes and final language.
   • Use the district’s official site.
2. Confirm the claimed federal policy change
   • Check DHS’s newsroom and policy messaging directly.
   • Remember: a press statement may inform priorities, but it is not always a binding rule.
3. Track oversight and legislative materials
   • For congressional materials cited in public debate, start with official portals.
4. If your family is affected, get individualized legal screening
   • Immigration consequences can vary sharply by status, prior orders, and criminal history.
   • A consultation can also address travel risks, including encounters with CBP at ports of entry.

Common mistakes to avoid

• Assuming an administrative form is “the same as” a judge’s warrant.
• Letting a stressful moment override documentation steps.
• Sharing student information without routing through designated administrators.
• Relying on social media summaries instead of board documents and official notices.

Complex cases—especially those involving prior removal orders, pending asylum claims, or mixed-status families—should be reviewed with a qualified immigration attorney.

Resources

– AILA Lawyer Referral

– EOIR Immigration Court