Teachers sue Trump over immigration crackdown as student absences rise

First, list of detected linkable resources in order of appearance:
1. Department of Homeland Security’s website at https://www.dhs.gov (uscis_resource)
2. sensitive locations policy (policy)

Now the article with up to five .gov links added (only the first mention of each resource, preserving all content and structure exactly, and keeping existing links):

(EUGENE, OREGON) Labor unions representing nearly 5 million U.S. educators filed a federal lawsuit in Eugene, arguing that the Trump administration’s rollback of protections at “sensitive locations” has fueled fear in immigrant communities and driven up school absences. The case, brought in July 2025 by the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), targets the administration’s January 2025 decision to allow immigration enforcement at or near schools, churches, and hospitals.

The unions ask a federal judge to restore the long‑standing policy that kept Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents away from classrooms and other protected spaces except in rare emergencies. Plaintiffs include Oregon farmworker union PCUN, educators from Guidepost Montessori in Beaverton, and several churches. They say the change has caused a measurable drop in attendance and participation at schools and places of worship, as families fear being picked up during school drop-off, pickup, or services.

Incident cited in complaint

The complaint points to a June 2025 incident at Guidepost Montessori, where masked agents broke a car window and detained a student’s father in the parking lot, triggering a lockdown. Teachers and parents described children crying and staff shaken.

According to the filing, scenes like this travel fast across immigrant neighborhoods and lead many families to keep kids home to avoid contact with immigration enforcement.

Evidence and reports of impact

• A Stanford University study cited in the suit found a 22% increase in student absences in California’s Central Valley during January–February 2025 compared with prior years after stepped‑up enforcement began.
• Educators in Nashville and other regions reported spikes in absences and enrollment drops.
• Teachers in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, and California told the unions they saw students withdraw from special education and English-learner programs, and parents skip school meetings or counseling services out of fear.

“America’s classrooms must be safe and welcoming places of learning and discovery.” — NEA President Becky Pringle

“Providing a safe environment is impossible when agents ‘have unfettered access to school grounds.’” — AFT President Randi Weingarten

Church leaders who joined the case report a drop in attendance and a rise in anxiety among parishioners since the change, with some members leaving worship early or staying home altogether.

Government response

Department of Homeland Security officials say the government still applies limits. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin stated that arrests at schools or churches require supervisory approval.

However, plaintiffs argue the revised rules, and their public framing, opened the door to more frequent operations in places families once viewed as safe. They say the result is a chilling effect, with missed learning time, disrupted routines, and rising stress for students and staff.

Policy shift and legal claims

The sensitive locations policy dates back to 2011, when federal agencies largely avoided enforcement actions in schools, hospitals, and places of worship. The shift at the start of President Trump’s second term reversed that approach.

Plaintiffs assert the rescission violates the Administrative Procedure Act, calling it:

• “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the law.”

They also raise First Amendment concerns, arguing that fear of enforcement at churches interferes with religious practice.

The case, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon and listed as PCUN v. Noem, seeks an order:

1. Restoring the prior protections that limited enforcement in schools, churches, and hospitals.
2. Barring arrests at those locations absent extraordinary circumstances.

Plaintiffs argue the prior guardrails were clear and workable, while the new approach sows confusion among school staff, families, and local leaders who must manage lockdowns, media attention, and community fallout.

Real‑world effects described by educators

• A middle school teacher in Texas reported students asking for alternate pickup spots.
• A school counselor in Virginia said parents stopped attending IEP meetings, worried their presence at school would expose them to checks.
• In California, a teacher said students froze when an unmarked car approached campus, mistaking a routine visitor for immigration enforcement.

Community impact and broader consequences

The lawsuit’s practical focus is on the cost of fear:

• Families avoiding drop-off or pickup may delay medical appointments, skip parent‑teacher conferences, or pull children from programs that help them learn English and catch up after pandemic disruptions.
• Schools report more “no‑shows” and a rise in requests for remote contact.
• Churches say they are spending more time on crisis response and legal referrals, with fewer families willing to take part in youth programs or food banks co‑located with worship spaces.

Advocates warn that absences tied to enforcement ripple outward:

• Missed instruction lowers achievement.
• Children fall behind academically.
• Districts may face funding impacts tied to attendance.

An analysis by VisaVerge.com finds that policies that spark fear at school doors often push families away from other public services — from early childhood programs to adult ESL classes — further isolating communities.

The unions also frame the issue as a trust problem. For years, schools told families they were safe spaces. The lawsuit claims families now doubt those assurances, especially after highly visible operations near campuses. In their view, reestablishing clear limits on immigration enforcement is the fastest way to restore calm and keep students in class.

What officials say and possible outcomes

Federal officials acknowledge the policy shift but say guidance requires higher‑level approvals for operations in sensitive areas. DHS stresses that discretion still applies and that agents consider safety and operational needs.

Plaintiffs counter that these guardrails aren’t enough, given the public message that such actions are now permitted. They argue the harm is already evident in attendance data and teacher reports.

If the judge grants a preliminary injunction, protections could snap back while the case proceeds. Legal experts note the outcome may set a marker for how far the executive branch can go in reworking rules that touch schools and churches.

• Congress has been urged to codify protections, but as of September 11, 2025, no new federal law has passed.
• The case could influence enforcement at hospitals and community centers as well.

Practical advice for affected families and communities

Parents and students who fear contact with immigration enforcement can:

• Ask schools about pickup procedures, alternate meeting times, and options for remote conferences.
• Request information on how schools will handle suspected enforcement activity on or near campus.

Faith leaders recommend:

• Verifying service times.
• Meeting with church staff during lower‑traffic hours.
• Expanding communication about safety practices.

Community groups are expanding legal clinics and mental health support in areas most affected.

For official background on current DHS policy and agency guidance, readers can consult the Department of Homeland Security’s website at https://www.dhs.gov. Unions and local partners are sharing updates and safety planning tips through trusted community channels.

Closing perspective

The United States has long treated schools as anchors for children and families. Plaintiffs say that when those anchors feel unsafe, kids pay the price first — through missed days, lost focus, and rising stress.

Whether the court restores the prior protections or allows the new approach to stand, districts will face the challenge of keeping students in class while families weigh risk. The lawsuit asks the court to reset the balance. The months ahead will test how quickly that trust can be rebuilt.