Indiana AG Sues IPS for Thwarting Federal Immigration Enforcement

(INDIANA, UNITED STATES) Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita sued Indianapolis Public Schools on November 6, 2025, accusing the state’s largest district of unlawfully blocking federal immigration enforcement by limiting access for agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and curbing what staff can share with authorities. The complaint argues that IPS policies “thwart” federal immigration enforcement and violate Indiana’s ban on local measures that restrict cooperation with ICE.

Rokita’s filing centers on a January 8, 2025 incident he says shows how district rules “frustrate ICE’s ability to do its job.” According to the lawsuit, the district prevented federal officers from deporting an undocumented immigrant who had “voluntarily agreed to leave the country.” The filing also alleges IPS staff “would not release a child to a father in ICE custody and instead put the child in touch with an immigration attorney for the evident purpose of advising the minor on how to avoid accompanying his father back to Honduras.”

“Sanctuary policies are bad in any context, but they are especially troubling in our schools. Schools across the country are vulnerable to infiltration by criminal illegal aliens—it’s happened in many other states—and it is essential that ICE be able to take action when that occurs to help keep our kids safe,” Rokita said, underscoring why his office is asking a court for a preliminary injunction while the case proceeds.

The attorney general is seeking immediate court-ordered changes to require the district to align with state and federal law as the litigation unfolds.

Indianapolis Public Schools said it will defend its approach to student safety and compliance.

“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 district said in a statement.

IPS added that it had been “actively collaborating with the Indiana Attorney General’s Office to review relevant policies and procedures,” but said the district received only five business days to respond to the review before Rokita filed suit.

At the heart of the dispute is how far a school system can go to shield students and families from immigration enforcement on campus. The district’s rules state ICE must show “proper legal documentation” to enter school grounds, such as a judicial warrant or court order, and prohibit employees from collecting or sharing the immigration status of students or their families. IPS says it will “cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement as required under the law” and will “require proper legal documentation from ICE to enter school facilities or buildings.” The attorney general argues those provisions overstep Indiana law by creating barriers that function as de facto sanctuary policies, which state statute forbids for local government entities, including school districts.

The lawsuit also reflects growing political pressure on schools over immigration enforcement and the line between local policy and federal authority. Rokita’s office contends IPS “thwarted” enforcement when district staff declined to facilitate the transfer of a child to a parent in federal custody and instead connected the child to legal counsel. IPS has not released any names tied to the January incident, and the district did not disclose the child’s immigration status. No criminal charges were described in the attorney general’s summary of the case beyond his assertion that the adult had agreed to depart the United States voluntarily.

Outside counsel aligned with the attorney general is also involved. The America First Policy Institute, a conservative policy group, is serving as special counsel in the case, represented by its chief legal affairs officer, Leigh Ann O’Neill.

“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,” O’Neill said.

AFPI’s executive director is Chad Wolf, who previously served as acting secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.

The IPS policies at issue aim to set a predictable process when immigration authorities seek to come onto campus or request information. According to the district, frontline staff are instructed not to ask about or keep records of immigration status, which administrators say helps ensure that information cannot be collected or shared by mistake. The rules also direct employees to refer inquiries from federal agents to district leadership and attorneys, and to allow entry only with proof of legal authority such as a warrant. The attorney general’s complaint takes issue with these steps on the grounds that they impede cooperation required under state law and make it harder for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to carry out its duties.

Immigration attorney Sarah Burrow said families have rights in situations involving mixed-status households and school settings.

“ICE cannot force the removal of a US citizen child if they have a trusted adult caretaker,” Burrow said, noting that the presence of a reliable guardian can determine whether a child must accompany a detained parent.

She believes the lawsuit is part of an effort to increase ICE’s presence in Indianapolis schools, a claim that underscores the tension between advocates who emphasize student safety and authorities who prioritize enforcement access.

Rokita’s filing argues that Indiana’s anti-sanctuary statute leaves little room for local policies that limit staff cooperation or set heightened thresholds for federal access. The lawsuit quotes the IPS rules to claim they “frustrate ICE’s ability to do its job” because they restrict voluntary sharing of information by employees and require ICE agents to present particular forms of court paperwork at the door. The state contends that when a federal officer appears to make a lawful arrest related to immigration violations, schools cannot interpose additional conditions that effectively delay or obstruct that action.

District leaders say those characterizations ignore the central purpose of school protocols, which is to keep classrooms calm and ensure any law enforcement presence is lawful, narrowly tailored, and minimally disruptive to students. In its response, IPS emphasized it would continue to comply with the law while upholding the safety commitments it has made to families and staff. By requiring “proper legal documentation” before agents step onto campus, the district argues it is aligning with standard legal practice and respecting the rights of students and parents during sensitive encounters.

The January 8 incident, as described by the attorney general, illustrates how these clashing views play out in real time. Rokita’s complaint says ICE officers sought to deport an adult who had decided to leave the country, and that district staff prevented a child from being released to the father while he was in ICE custody. Rokita says the child was instead connected with an immigration lawyer to discuss how to avoid traveling with the father to Honduras. IPS has not publicly discussed the sequence of events other than to say it follows the law and its own policies aimed at student safety and legal compliance.

For families in Indianapolis Public Schools, the outcome could affect how schools respond to future visits by immigration officers and how staff handle requests for information about students or parents. A court-ordered preliminary injunction would likely require the district to modify or suspend portions of its policies while the case is litigated. Rokita is pressing for that immediate relief, arguing that each school day under the current rules risks additional conflicts with federal authorities. IPS, for its part, indicates it is prepared to defend the provisions it says provide clarity and uphold both student safety and the rule of law.

Advocates on both sides see broader stakes. Supporters of Rokita say school-based limits hamper enforcement of immigration laws and could allow people with pending deportation orders to evade federal custody. Backers of the district point to the need for clear boundaries to prevent sudden law enforcement actions from disrupting learning or causing panic among students, many of whom may be U.S. citizens in mixed-status families. Burrow’s comment underscores a legal reality in those families, while the attorney general’s rhetoric highlights concerns about campus safety and criminal activity. Each side frames the same policy language—such as the demand for a warrant or court order—either as prudent risk management or as an unlawful barrier.

The legal contest also places a spotlight on how state laws designed to preempt local “sanctuary” measures apply in schools, which operate in a setting where student welfare and privacy are central. Indiana’s statute bars local government entities from adopting rules that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Rokita argues IPS has done exactly that by telling employees not to share information and by restricting access absent specific documentation. IPS insists its guidelines are designed to ensure any cooperation happens in a lawful, orderly way that protects students and staff while meeting legal obligations.

AFPI’s involvement signals the case could resonate outside Indiana. Leigh Ann O’Neill’s praise for Rokita and her offer to “assist other AGs looking to follow Indiana’s lead” suggests similar challenges could emerge in other states where school districts have set guardrails around immigration enforcement on campus. With Chad Wolf at the helm of the institute, the litigation ties current policy debates to earlier federal enforcement priorities, even as the dispute in Indianapolis hinges on state law and district procedures.

As the case moves forward, the specific language of IPS’s rules will come under close scrutiny, including the instructions that employees not collect or disclose immigration status and that ICE agents must present a warrant or court order to enter buildings. The court will also examine the January 8 episode and the allegation that staff “would not release a child to a father in ICE custody,” as well as Rokita’s claim that the district connected the child to legal counsel to avoid departure to Honduras. The district’s statements that it will “cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement as required under the law” and will “require proper legal documentation from ICE to enter school facilities or buildings” will likely be weighed against the state’s contention that those commitments, as implemented, violate Indiana’s statutory limits on local policies.

For now, the attorney general’s lawsuit puts Indianapolis Public Schools on the front line of a national argument over where school safety protocols end and federal immigration enforcement begins. Rokita has made clear he sees IPS’s policies as an unlawful shield that “thwart” federal officers, while district leaders stress their duty to protect students and maintain order. The next steps will unfold in court, where judges will decide whether to grant a preliminary injunction and how to interpret the state’s anti-sanctuary statute in the context of campus rules.

The stakes are immediate for families who could encounter ICE at or near school grounds and for teachers and principals who must decide, in the moment, how to respond to requests from federal agents. IPS says its policies are designed to keep those decisions out of the hallway and in the hands of legal experts, while Rokita argues those rules risk obstructing lawful enforcement. As both sides marshal their legal arguments, the practical questions—who gets access to a school, what documents officers must present, and what information staff can share—are likely to determine how future encounters play out in classrooms and front offices across the district.