January 28, 2025

Dear Norristown Area School District Students, Families, Staff, and Community Members,

On January 21, 2025, the federal agency directive titled “Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas,” which prohibited immigration agents from carrying out enforcement actions, including arrests and searches of undocumented immigrants in schools, was rescinded. This action has caused a great deal of anxiety, stress, and uncertainty with members of our community. The district has been intentional in thoroughly researching the implications of this change and in seeking legal guidance on the impact this will have on district operations.

Norristown Area School District is proud to reaffirm that our schools are and will remain dedicated to the safety, respect, and inclusion of all students, regardless of their background or circumstances. As outlined in our recently adopted Welcoming Schools Resolution, our schools are places where each and every child is valued, affirmed, and respected. Please know that the Norristown Area School District is committed to ensuring our schools are safe spaces where each and every student can focus on learning and growing, free from discrimination or harassment based on ancestry, national origin, language, or immigration status.

To assist our students, families, staff, and community members, we are publishing the following information to provide clarity in how we will operate and handle certain situations, should they arise related to the change in federal agency directive. Each section is organized by main topic, followed by a concise legal description, and concludes with the main point emphasized in italics for clarity.

1. All Children, Including Undocumented Children, Have Both a Federal and State Right To a Public Education.

In the case of Plyler v. Doe (1982), the U.S. Supreme Court held that public schools must be accessible to all children regardless of immigration status.

At the state level, Pennsylvania recognizes the right to public education as a fundamental right and prohibits a school district from conditioning a child’s access to education on the child’s immigration status. Specifically, the PA School Code states “a school may not inquire regarding the immigration status of a student as part of the admission process.” This was affirmed in the Commonwealth Court case of William Penn School District v. Pennsylvania Department of Education (2023).

Therefore, all children who reside within the Norristown Area School District are welcome to enroll, be admitted, and attend our public schools free from discrimination.

2. An Immigration Officer’s Request for Student Information Is Subject To FERPA.

School districts have an obligation under federal law, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), to maintain the confidentiality of student records. FERPA permits disclosure of student records when the district properly receives a judicial order, a judicial warrant, or a subpoena. The district will utilize legal counsel to determine whether we are required to provide FERPA-protected information to immigration officials if and when judicial orders, warrants, or subpoenas are received.

FERPA broadly prohibits schools from disclosing student records without the written consent of the parent or student. FERPA applies to “education records”, which are those directly related to a student and those that are maintained by an educational agency or institution. FERPA permits disclosure of student education records in compliance with a “judicial order or lawfully issued subpoena.”

If served with a valid judicial order, warrant, or subpoena requesting disclosure of FERPA-covered information, a school district must make a “reasonable effort to notify” the parent or the student in advance of compliance to give them a chance to challenge the court order or subpoena, unless a court has ordered that the existence of the subpoena may not be disclosed.

In the immigration enforcement context, courts have not addressed whether an administrative warrant or a subpoena issued by the Department of Homeland Security is a “judicial order” or “lawfully issued subpoena” under FERPA.

If an immigration official requests information protected by FERPA, Norristown Area School District officials will provide that information only upon presentation and verification of a valid judicial order, warrant, and/or subpoena, after review by the district’s legal counsel.

3. There Are Legal Obligations And Standards To Comply With Immigration Officials Request To Enforce Immigration Laws On School Premises.

In the cases of Yoc-Us v. Attorney General of the United States (2019) and United States v. Brignoni-Ponce (1975), the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that undocumented individuals are entitled to the constitutional protections of the Fourth Amendment. The Court also established that the enforcement powers of immigration officials are limited by the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures in the case of Katz v. United States (1967). Where a person has a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” the Fourth Amendment disallows government officials from entering that space to apprehend them unless they have a valid judicial warrant. A valid judicial warrant is signed by a neutral magistrate, written with particularity, and supported by probable cause.

In the school setting, the scenarios where the Fourth Amendment will come into play are in instances where immigration officers attempt to physically enter a school to investigate, speak with, or detain a student or employee.

If an immigration official attempts to enter a school building or be on school grounds during times when students are under school supervision, Norristown Area School District officials will allow entry only upon presentation and verification of a valid judicial order, warrant, and/or subpoena, after review by the district’s legal counsel.

4. Public Schools Are Non-Public Areas.

School facilities are considered non-public areas since students and staff maintain a reasonable expectation of privacy, and the District limits public access to school facilities. If an immigration official seeks to enter a non-public area, the officer needs either a “warrant or the consent of the owner or other person in control of the site to be inspected.” The Fourth Amendment protects individuals whenever the government invades an area in which a person entertains a reasonable expectation of privacy. This was affirmed in the case of U.S. v. Jenkins (1995). Immigration officials may only enter public areas “without a warrant, consent, or any particularized suspicion in order to question any person whom the officer believes to be an alien concerning his or her right to be or remain in the United States.”

If an immigration official attempts to enter a school building or be on school grounds during times when students are under school supervision, Norristown Area School District officials will allow entry only upon presentation and verification of a valid judicial order, warrant, and/or subpoena, after review by the district’s legal counsel.

5. Administrative Warrants Do Not Grant Unfettered Access to Non-Public Areas Under The Fourth Amendment.

The district will utilize legal counsel to determine whether we are required to comply with the intended enforcement actions of immigration officials if and when judicial orders, warrants, or subpoenas are received.

In the case of Commonwealth v. Romero (2018), it was affirmed that the Fourth Amendment requires law enforcement entry into a non-public area to be authorized by a warrant reflecting a magisterial determination of probable cause, whether by a separate search warrant or contained within the arrest warrant itself. In the case of Oliva-Ramos v. Attorney General of the United States (2012), it was not disputed that an ICE administrative warrant did not grant immigration officials the authority to enter a home without consent. Immigration court decisions further support that a valid warrant is needed to enter a home, as determined in Re: Miguel Augusto Ixpec-Chitay (2013). The same analysis is applied to other non-public areas, including schools.

The understanding that an administrative warrant is not sufficient to grant entry under the Fourth Amendment is consistent with federal regulations. These regulations prohibit immigration officers from entering a non-public area for the purpose of questioning the occupants or employees without a warrant or consent. Those same regulations require immigration officials to obtain a search warrant “prior to conducting a search in a criminal investigation.”

An “ICE warrant” or “administrative warrant” is a form issued by certain immigration officers that names an allegedly deportable non-citizen and directs various federal immigration enforcement agents to arrest that individual. Unlike criminal warrants, an ICE warrant is not reviewed or issued by a neutral magistrate. In the case of See v. City of Seattle (1967), it was determined that administrative warrants do not confer authority to enter private spaces to execute an arrest or search. In the case of Galarza v. Szalczyk (2014), it was determined that ICE detainers are permissive rather than mandatory and a school district is not obligated to honor ICE detainers or requests.

If an immigration official attempts to enter a school using an administrative warrant, Norristown Area School District officials will not allow entry. District’s legal counsel will review all warrants to determine if they are administrative or judicial.

6. School Districts Should Not Interfere or Impede An Immigration Officer’s Enforcement Action.

There are no laws mandating local school districts to assist immigration officers in the enforcement of immigration laws. However, school personnel are strongly discouraged from frustrating law enforcement purposes. Actively resisting the efforts of immigration officials may result in legal consequences. Under federal law, it is unlawful for a person to willfully resist, oppose, impede, or interfere with any officer of the United States Government who is discharging or attempting to discharge his or her official duties.

Norristown Area School District and its officials will cooperate with law enforcement officers and immigration officers who have proper and lawful jurisdiction and will fully comply with all valid judicial orders, warrants, and/or subpoenas, after review by the district’s legal counsel.

We hope this information brings clarity and reassurance about the district’s dedication to creating a safe, welcoming, and supportive environment where every student and staff member feels seen, heard, and valued. We recognize the importance of fostering a sense of belonging and understanding for everyone in our community. Additional resources will be shared soon and will also be available on our district website to ensure you have the support and information you need.

All district staff members will receive detailed procedures should the district need to interact with immigration officials or need to comply with warrants or subpoenas.

Below are the legal citations, statutes, and case law reviewed in preparation of this communication and the establishment of district procedures.

Sincerely,

Christopher T. Dormer

Superintendent of Schools

Legal References and Citations:

Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 212 (1982).

22 Pa. Code § 11.11(d) (2009) (noting that “a school may not inquire regarding the immigration status of a student as part of the admission process”); see also William Penn Sch. Dist. v. Pennsylvania Dep't of Educ., 294 A.3d 537, 947 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2023).

20 U.S.C. § 1232g(a)(4)(A).

34 C.F.R. §99.31.

§ 99.37 (a)(2).

Yoc-Us v. Att'y Gen. United States, 932 F.3d 98, 104 (3d Cir. 2019) (relevant Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights apply to non-citizens);

United States v. Brignoni-Ponce, 422 U.S. 873, 886 (1975) (unlawfully present individuals are subject to the protection of the Fourth Amendment).

Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 362 (1967).

U.S. v. Jenkins, 5 OCAHO 743 (Mar. 24, 1995)(holding that an individual who was approached by ICE had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the parking area and on the property surrounding his house).

8 C.F.R. § 287.8. Yet, 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(f)(2); ICE Fugitive Operations Handbook, p. 18.

See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (1967) (holding that administrative entry to areas not open to the public may only be compelled through the warrant procedure); see also 8 C.F.R. § 287.8(f)(2).

Commonwealth v. Romero, 183 A.3d 364, 405–06 (2018)

Oliva-Ramos v. Attorney General of the United States, 694 F.3d 259, 265 (3d Cir. 2012)

In Re: Miguel Augusto Ixpec-Chitay, No. AXXX XX5 400 - NEW, 2013 WL 5872076, at *3 (DCBABR Sept. 16, 2013).

8 C.F.R. § 287.8(f)(2) (2008)

8 C.F.R. § 287.9.

In Matter of Garcia-Flores, 17 I&N Dec. 325, 327 (BIA 1980);

Bridges v. Wixon, 326 U.S. 135, 152-153 (1945).

Galarza v. Szalczyk, 745 F.3d 634, 642 (3d Cir. 2014).

18 U.S.C. 111(a).