(INDIANA, UNITED STATES) Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita filed a lawsuit on November 6, 2025 against Indianapolis Public Schools, accusing the state’s largest school district of adopting policies that “frustrate” federal immigration enforcement by limiting cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and violating Indiana’s anti-sanctuary law. The complaint asks a court to order immediate changes, including a preliminary injunction, after a January incident in which IPS employees declined to assist federal agents who did not present a court order or judicial warrant.
Rokita framed the suit as a public safety measure focused on school environments and federal immigration officers’ access to information and facilities.
“Sanctuary policies are bad in any context, but they are especially troubling in our schools… it is essential that ICE be able to take action when that occurs to help keep our kids safe. That’s why my office, with the assistance of AFPI, is suing IPS to enforce compliance with state law and protect Hoosier schoolchildren,” he said.
The lawsuit contends the district’s written procedures and staff guidance “severely limit ICE’s access to school grounds and prohibit IPS employees from assisting or sharing information with ICE,” putting the district in direct conflict with state law.
The filing centers on a specific encounter on January 8, 2025, when federal agents contacted IPS in search of the son of a Honduran national who was scheduled for deportation that afternoon. According to Rokita’s office, IPS staff prevented ICE from deporting the individual because the agents could not provide a court order or judicial warrant. State lawyers say that decision flowed from district policies that, in practice, block immigration enforcement activities on school property unless federal officers arrive with judicial authorization. IPS policy, as of February 2025, is that it “wouldn’t allow any action by ICE on school grounds without a judicial warrant.”
IPS leaders pushed back in a series of public statements, arguing the district abides by the law while protecting students and families.
“Indianapolis Public Schools is committed to ensuring safe, supportive, and welcoming learning environments for all students. As has always been the case, we will continue to uphold the law while keeping these commitments,” the IPS Board of School Commissioners said.
The district added that it had been “actively collaborating with the Indiana Attorney General’s Office to review relevant policies and procedures,” but said Rokita gave administrators only five business days to respond and refused a request for more time.
Rokita’s suit was filed with help from the America First Policy Institute, a conservative policy organization that is serving as special counsel. AFPI’s chief legal affairs officer, Leigh Ann O’Neill, said:
“Attorney General Rokita is showing exactly the kind of leadership America needs… We’re proud to support this work — and we stand ready to assist other AGs looking to follow Indiana’s lead.”
AFPI’s executive director is Chad Wolf, a former acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security. Rokita’s office is seeking a preliminary injunction to compel IPS to “comply with state and federal law regarding cooperation with immigration authorities,” a step that would quickly force policy changes while the case proceeds.
The complaint argues that Indiana law bars local government entities, including school districts, from adopting rules that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. According to the filing, IPS violates that prohibition in several ways: by requiring superintendent approval before any employee can assist immigration enforcement; by promising not to collect information about the immigration status of students or staff; and by refusing to allow federal authorities onto district property absent a warrant or court order. Rokita’s team says those provisions amount to an unlawful sanctuary policy under state law, a label the district disputes.
As the dispute escalated, IPS leaders criticized the attorney general’s tone and priorities. In a pointed statement, IPS said:
“Every dollar spent on defensive legal posture is a dollar not spent on instructional support, teacher development, student services, or enrichment. In this case, Mr. Rokita prefers those dollars go to fight gratuitous political battles, as has too often been the case.”
The district also objected to language used by the attorney general in his public remarks.
“IPS is deeply offended that the Indiana Attorney General persists in willfully dehumanizing our children and their families by labeling them as ‘aliens.’ Our students are invaluable, unique, and bright human beings who enrich our schools and our community,” the district said.
Rokita situated the legal action within a broader debate over federal immigration enforcement involving minors, stating that ICE is “attempting to locate the nearly 400,000 unaccompanied alien children whom the Biden Administration released into the United States and who are vulnerable to exploitation by human traffickers. To do so, ICE requires help from school authorities to determine whether and where these minors may be enrolled in school.” That claim underscores the attorney general’s argument that school systems play a role in enabling federal agencies to carry out their duties and that restricting information or access could impede efforts to find and protect children.
The January encounter described in the lawsuit places Indianapolis Public Schools at the center of a clash between state and local authority on one side and federal enforcement on the other. IPS says it is committed to both safety and the law, but its policy of requiring a judicial warrant before allowing any ICE action on school grounds sets a clear line that state officials contend is illegal. For parents, students, and staff, the stakes include whether students may be contacted on campus, what records could be shared with federal agents, and how principals and teachers should respond when immigration officers call or arrive at a school building.
The attorney general’s office has not publicly named the school involved in the January 8, 2025 incident, nor identified the Honduran family at the center of the dispute, citing the lack of individual names in public filings. According to the complaint, federal agents contacted IPS that morning seeking to locate the son of a person scheduled for deportation later that day. When ICE could not produce a court order or judicial warrant, the district’s staff refused to facilitate the enforcement action, consistent with its internal guidance. That decision, as presented by state lawyers, formed a key factual basis for alleging that IPS policies interfere with federal law.
The legal standards at issue rest on Indiana’s anti-sanctuary statute, which forbids local governments and subdivisions from adopting or enforcing policies that restrict cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Rokita’s suit contends that the IPS directives effectively instruct employees not to assist, except under narrow circumstances, and to withhold information about immigration status altogether. While school districts across the United States often avoid collecting immigration status to protect student privacy and ensure equal access to education, Rokita argues that IPS went further by imposing institutional barriers that he says conflict with state law and federal supremacy in immigration matters.
IPS counters that it both follows the law and centers student wellbeing. The district says it had been in active discussions with the Attorney General’s Office to review policies when the lawsuit was filed and that administrators asked for more than the five business days they were given to complete the review. IPS maintains that clear, consistent rules help keep schools calm, reduce the risk of confrontations on campus, and safeguard the learning environment, even as it stresses it will comply with legal obligations.
For families within Indianapolis Public Schools, the question now is how the court resolves the tension between the district’s requirement for a judicial warrant and the state’s insistence on broader cooperation. The attorney general’s call for a preliminary injunction suggests a fast-moving early stage that could reshape district protocols while litigation continues. If granted, such an order could oblige IPS to modify staff guidance immediately, expand access for federal officers to school grounds, or alter how the district responds to telephone requests from immigration authorities.
AFPI’s involvement signals national attention to the case and an intent to press similar challenges elsewhere.
“Attorney General Rokita is showing exactly the kind of leadership America needs… We’re proud to support this work — and we stand ready to assist other AGs looking to follow Indiana’s lead,” said Leigh Ann O’Neill.
With Chad Wolf listed as AFPI’s executive director, the organization’s presence ties the Indiana dispute to broader policy advocacy focused on expanding cooperation between local institutions and federal immigration enforcement.
The two sides’ language reflects a stark divide in emphasis. Rokita’s office repeatedly stresses that school safety depends on allowing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to act when agents deem it necessary and on ensuring that district policies do not shield individuals from federal authority. IPS, in turn, underscores its mission to foster safe, supportive, and welcoming learning environments and says it will “continue to uphold the law while keeping these commitments.” The district’s rejection of the term “aliens” and its warning about diverting money from classrooms to litigation show that leaders view the attorney general’s approach as both costly and harmful to school communities.
The lawsuit’s outcome could reverberate beyond Indianapolis Public Schools, given that Indiana’s anti-sanctuary provisions apply statewide and the attorney general has positioned the case as a model for others. For school administrators, a ruling against IPS could require rewrites of staff manuals and training for principals, counselors, and security teams on how to engage with ICE without overstepping legal limits. For parents, particularly in immigrant households, the court’s decision may shape whether they fear that school campuses can become sites of federal enforcement or trust that access to education remains buffered from immigration actions absent a judge’s order.
As the case proceeds, IPS’s insistence that it was “actively collaborating with the Indiana Attorney General’s Office to review relevant policies and procedures” before being sued suggests that the parties had at least some pathway to policy review outside court. The attorney general’s office, however, argues that the urgency of enforcement and the constraints of state law leave no room for policies it says “severely limit ICE’s access” to information and property. The request for a preliminary injunction raises the prospect of immediate changes, even while the legal arguments about the reach of state law and the scope of local school authority continue to unfold.
What happens next will likely hinge on a judge’s view of how Indiana’s statute applies to the specific IPS provisions and whether requiring a judicial warrant for on-campus action unlawfully restricts cooperation with federal officers. The court will also consider the practical implications for day-to-day school operations, including how front-office staff respond to calls from federal agents, what information can be shared about students and families, and whether school safety policies can coexist with federal enforcement priorities without chilling attendance or trust.
For now, Indianapolis parents and students are caught between competing directives from the state and the district. The complaint’s focus on the January 8, 2025 encounter underscores how rapidly these conflicts can arise and how much turns on a principal’s or security officer’s response in the moment. With Todd Rokita pressing the case and Indianapolis Public Schools vowing both legal compliance and protection for students, the legal battle over ICE access to school grounds has moved from policy manuals to the courtroom, where judges will determine how far Indiana can go in compelling districts to assist federal immigration enforcement inside and around their schools.
This Article in a Nutshell
Todd Rokita sued Indianapolis Public Schools on November 6, 2025, claiming district policies obstruct ICE and violate Indiana’s anti‑sanctuary statute. The complaint focuses on a January 8, 2025 incident when IPS staff refused to assist federal agents lacking a judicial warrant; it argues district guidance effectively bars ICE from school grounds and limits staff cooperation. Rokita requests a preliminary injunction to force immediate policy changes. IPS defends student protections, says it is reviewing policies with the attorney general’s office, and criticizes the lawsuit’s timing and rhetoric.
