Duluth Public Schools vs. Department of Homeland Security, ICE School Enforcement Lawsuit

Note: This article covers an active lawsuit. Information reflects the case as of May 9, 2026, and will be updated as proceedings continue.

Duluth Public Schools (ISD 709) vs. the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is a federal civil lawsuit in which the plaintiffs challenged DHS’s decision to rescind decades-old guidance that limited immigration enforcement near schools, arguing the policy change disrupted education and caused widespread fear among students and families. A federal judge denied the plaintiffs’ request to block ICE enforcement near schools on May 6, 2026. The lawsuit itself continues toward trial.

Quick Facts

Field	Detail
Plaintiffs	Duluth Public Schools (ISD 709), Fridley Public Schools (ISD 14), Education Minnesota
Defendant	U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), ICE, and related officials
Case Type	Administrative Procedure Act (APA) challenge — civil lawsuit
Court	U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Date Filed	February 4, 2026
Legal Claim	Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act; unlawful rescission of federal sensitive locations policy
Damages Sought	Declaratory and injunctive relief — no monetary damages claimed
Current Stage	Preliminary injunction denied May 6, 2026; case proceeds toward trial
Next Scheduled Date	TBD — not yet confirmed on the public docket as of May 9, 2026
Attorneys for Plaintiffs	Amanda Cialkowski (Nilan Johnson Lewis PA), June Hoidal (Zimmerman Reed LLP), Kevin C. Riach (The Law Office of Kevin C. Riach), Democracy Forward
Attorney for DHS	Jessica Lundberg, U.S. Department of Justice
Last Updated	May 9, 2026

Case Timeline

Date	Event
January 20, 2025	Trump administration rescinds DHS “sensitive locations” policy via one-page memo
February 4, 2026	Duluth, Fridley, and Education Minnesota file federal lawsuit in the District of Minnesota
February 23, 2026	Plaintiffs file emergency motion for preliminary injunction
April 8, 2026	Hearing on preliminary injunction before Judge Laura Provinzino
May 6, 2026	Judge Provinzino denies preliminary injunction in 38-page ruling
TBD	Next hearing date — not yet confirmed on docket as of May 9, 2026

The Duluth School District, Fridley Schools, and Education Minnesota vs. DHS

Duluth Public Schools (ISD 709), Fridley Public Schools (ISD 14), and Education Minnesota — the statewide teachers union — filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota on February 4, 2026. The lawsuit challenges a DHS policy change that removed long-standing protections for schools under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) — a federal law that requires government agencies to follow proper procedures before changing established rules.

For 30 years, schools had been largely off-limits for ICE except in extreme circumstances. DHS reversed course in 2025 with a one-page memorandum that eliminated pre-approval requirements, reporting safeguards, and any clear limits on enforcement near schools. The new guidance instructs agents to use their own judgment. Under the old rules, agents could only act near schools in narrow circumstances, such as a national security threat. The plaintiffs argue that removing those limits without proper legal process violated the APA.

The Duluth district is particularly focused on the confusion the policy change created. Duluth Public Schools superintendent John Magas stated the old guidance worked well and created a clear line between immigration enforcement and the need for schools to be safe places. He added that even without direct ICE activity on Duluth school property, the loss of the protected areas policy created fear and uncertainty throughout the district. For readers in the Duluth community wondering about your rights if ICE appears near your school or home, see Yes, ICE Is Law Enforcement — But Their Authority Has Limits You Need to Know.

Who Filed the Lawsuit and Who They Are Suing

Duluth Public Schools is a public school district in Duluth, Minnesota, serving thousands of students from kindergarten through 12th grade. Superintendent John Magas leads the district and has been its public spokesperson throughout the litigation. The district joined this case because it argues the loss of the sensitive locations policy directly created fear and instability in Duluth classrooms, even though direct ICE activity on Duluth school grounds remained minimal.

Related article: Emily LaPrade vs. Volkswagen, 2023 Tiguan Heated Seat Defective Design Lawsuit

Fridley Public Schools is a Minneapolis-area district of approximately 2,800 students. Fridley reported a 33% drop in attendance during Operation Metro Surge, and twice had to cancel classes because so many students stayed home. Education Minnesota is the statewide teachers union representing over 84,000 educators, and argues the policy change forced it to divert staff time and resources away from normal labor support functions to instead train members on how to respond to ICE activity near schools.

The defendants are DHS, ICE, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and related senior officials. The government’s legal position is that the 2025 guidance did not change DHS’s underlying authority — it only changed internal discretion. For a deeper look at how ICE enforcement authority is structured, read HSI vs. ERO Powers — Which ICE Branch Is Knocking on Your Door? on AllAboutLawyer.com.

ICE Near Minnesota Schools — The Ruling Duluth Families Are Watching

U.S. District Judge Laura Provinzino, a Biden appointee, denied the preliminary injunction on May 6, 2026, finding that the plaintiffs failed to prove that harms to schools during Operation Metro Surge stemmed directly from the 2025 policy change they sought to challenge. A preliminary injunction is a court order that temporarily stops a specific action while a case is still ongoing. Denying one means the challenged activity — here, ICE enforcement near schools — can continue while the lawsuit proceeds.

Judge Provinzino wrote that the 2025 guidance did not change DHS’s ability or authority to engage in enforcement activity near protected areas. “What has changed, evidently, is DHS’s willingness — not its authority,” she stated. She also found that declining school attendance could not be clearly tied to the policy text alone, and that reinstating the 2021 guidance would not legally prevent future enforcement near schools in any case.

The judge noted her ruling makes no final determination on the merits of the case, and the court offered no opinion on the wisdom of DHS’s policy or the sincerity of the harm claimed. The case moves forward. The plaintiffs stated they will continue fighting.

ICE Enforcement in Duluth Schools — What Comes Next

The denial of the preliminary injunction is not the end of this lawsuit. The case now proceeds through standard pre-trial stages — including discovery, where both sides gather evidence — before any trial or final ruling. The plaintiffs may also consider an appeal of the injunction denial to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, though no appeal has been confirmed as of May 9, 2026.

Magas told the Duluth News Tribune he found the ruling disappointing in terms of the clarity schools were seeking, but noted the lawsuit had already raised public awareness and that the district would consult its legal team on next steps. The DHS celebrated the ruling, calling it a victory for the rule of law.

Even with fewer federal agents visible in Minnesota following the drawdown after Operation Metro Surge, the lack of any formal written limit on school-area enforcement remains the central concern for Duluth and Fridley families. The lawsuit is the only legal vehicle currently seeking to restore those written limits.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who filed the Duluth ICE school enforcement lawsuit?

 Duluth Public Schools (ISD 709), Fridley Public Schools (ISD 14), and Education Minnesota filed the lawsuit on February 4, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and related agencies.

What court is handling this case?

 The case is before the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, assigned to U.S. District Judge Laura Provinzino.

What is the current status of the case? 

Judge Provinzino denied the preliminary injunction on May 6, 2026, meaning immigration enforcement activity near schools can continue while the lawsuit proceeds toward trial.

How much money are the plaintiffs seeking?

 The plaintiffs are not seeking money damages. They asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief — meaning a court order declaring the policy change unlawful and blocking enforcement near schools.

Can I read the court documents? 

Yes. The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. Documents are publicly available through PACER and CourtListener by searching for the plaintiff names or case filing date of February 4, 2026.

What happened to school attendance in Minnesota during this case? 

Fridley Public Schools alone had to un-enroll at least 20 students due to prolonged absences tied to fear of immigration enforcement, and both Fridley and Duluth diverted staff time and expanded remote learning to respond to community concerns.

Did the judge say the policy change was lawful?

 No. Judge Provinzino stated her ruling makes no final determination on the merits of the case and offered no opinion on the wisdom of DHS’s policy. The injunction denial only means the policy can stay in effect for now — the court has not yet ruled on whether the policy change was legal.

Sources

• Education Minnesota Press Release — Lawsuit Filed, February 4, 2026
• Courthouse News Service — Judge Rejects Injunction, May 7, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Information is based on publicly available court records and verified news reporting. Allegations described have not been proven in court. For advice about a specific legal situation, consult a qualified attorney.

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against official court records and verified public sources on May 9, 2026. Last Updated: May 9, 2026.