Denver Public Schools: Educating All Students

Luis Torres, Ph.D.

Posted February 20, 2025

Alone among its peers nationally, Denver Public Schools (DPS) on February 12, 2025, filed a lawsuit to initiate a “Temporary Restraining Order on Sensitive Location Revocation,” that is, to prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs Border Protection (CBP) from conducting raids against DPS schools regarding the possible immigration status of some of its students. As the only school district nationally to do so up to now, DPS as an entire district, especially the Board of Education and the Superintendent, again deserve commendations from El Semanario for this honorable and courageous stance to protect its students, all of its students. Denver Public Schools Superintendent Dr. Alex Marrero explained DPS’ rationale in a letter addressed to the DPS Community on February 12, 2025, explaining his and the District’s actions in this regard. Dr. Marrero’s letter is entitled

“Denver Public Schools Files Immediate Temporary Restraining Order on Sensitive Location Revocation.”

A Temporary Restraining Order (TROs) according to the Colorado Judicial Branch document, “County Court Restraining Orders,” serves a variety of purposes, including immediate relief from a potential peril or jeopardy. A TRO has the benefit of rapid response to protect the petitioner, but it also has the detriment of being short-term, as “Temporary” indicates. They are often noted in the media as serving to protect a victim from further abuse by the perpetrator, often, tragically, in domestic violence cases. According to the Judicial Branch document, TROs require the petitioner to go before a Judge to follow up the initial filing with a court date to provide further information about the perceived or expected risk without further court involvement. “The TRO will contain the date and time that you are scheduled to return to court, so that the order can be made permanent. If you do not have the order made permanent, it will be vacated or set aside” (page 3; emphasis in original). DPS might have been drawn to filing a TRO against ICE and DHS perhaps because the Judicial Branch document specifically mentions the following:

The judge can order the defendant to stay a specific distance

from your residence (even if it is the family residence or if the title/lease is in the defendant’s name);
from your job;
from your children’s day care or school;
from friends or family places;
from public places where you go frequently. (Emphasis in original)

From DPS’s point of view, the key factor might have been the directive to ICE and DHS “to stay a specific distance…you’re your children’s daycare or school,” perhaps also considering “from your residence”.

It is most unfortunate that Denver Public Schools saw the manifest need to file a TRO against ICE and DHS. We note the inherent irony that the Department of Homeland Security—with the word “Security” eminent in its title—is one of the defendants of the DPS TRO; DHS should be providing “security,” not dangers or threats against the children in DPS. But this is what the Trump administration has come to regarding immigration.

Today, there must be a concerted effort in our community to stand against such denigration of our society’s young people, and in favor of the rule of law for all people, just as Denver Public Schools is standing for education for all of our children.

Dr. Marrero’s letter to the community begins: “On Jan. 21, The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced the rescission of immigration enforcement guidelines, which originated more than 30 years ago. Specifically, this policy restricted enforcement actions near sensitive locations, including schools.”

According to the October 24, 2011, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Department guidelines, with the subject as “Enforcement Actions at or Focused on Sensitive Locations.”

The sensitive locations covered by this policy include, but are not limited to, the following:

schools (including pre-schools, primary schools, secondary schools, post-secondary schools up to and including colleges and universities, and other institutions of learning such as vocational or trade schools);
hospitals;
churches, synagogues, mosques or other institutions of worship, such as buildings rented for the purpose of religious services;
the site of a funeral, wedding, or other public religious ceremony; and
a site during the occurrence of a public demonstration, such as a march, rally or parade.

The directives about these “sensitive locations” have now been rescinded, according to the National Immigration Law Center document,

“Factsheet: Trump’s Recission of Protected Area Policies Undermines Safety for All”.

On January 20, 2025, the Trump Administration rescinded a Biden-era policy that protected certain areas—such as churches, school, and hospitals—from immigration enforcement, replacing it with an unreleased directive that gives ICE agents unbridled power to take enforcement actions in any of these spaces using so-called “common sense.”

Nationally the Trump administration has placed schools within its radar for possible ICE raids against immigrant K-12 students. This should never be the case against such children. The United States prides itself as being a nation of laws, but what laws are there that marginalize students to the extent that the country turns its misguided interpretation of laws to be used against children in K-12? It is a given in American jurisprudence, and in civilized societies, that children under the age of ten cannot commit a crime—any crime. Between the ages of 11-15, on a sliding scale, when a child engages in actions that might be considered social transgressions if engaged in by adults, the Justice system intervenes for the protection, not the punishment, of the child. This is why young people are not considered adults until age 18, at least in most states, with some states not considering full adulthood until age 21. Such widely-held understandings explain at least in part why our society deems K-12 schooling to end at age 18, before transitioning to higher education, into military service, the work force, or additional quests.

And yet, the Trump administration has begun its immigration enforcement to include K-12 schools, where the students generally are between the ages of five to eighteen years of age. Information about DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) is applicable here, with DACA specifically aiming to protect undocumented young people. “The average DACA recipient arrived in the United States at age 7 and has lived here for more than 20 years” (Fact Sheet: Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) – National Immigration Forum , October 16, 2020). A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) document, (DHS Docket No. USCIS-2021-0006) states, “On average, DACA recipients arrived in the United States in 2001 and at the age of 6. In addition, 38 percent of recipients arrived before the age of 5. For many, this country is the only one they have known as home,” (page 53738; pagination per Federal Register practice.)

Considering such rescission of schools as “sensitive locations,” it serves to consider other previously identified locations as comparisons, including “churches, synagogues, mosques or other institutions of worship,” included in the National Immigration Law Center listing, above.

Tellingly, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This Constitutional Amendment applies here because of the “sensitive locations” issue pronouncement by the Trump administration, that such locations can now be transgressed by ICE agents. The phrase in the Amendment, “free exercise thereof,” would presumably mean that parishioners may freely “exercise” their religion, as students in schools previously could “exercise” their learning. Part of this rescission of “sensitive location” identification for places of worship is often derided as providing “sanctuary” for immigrants, perhaps a bulwark of the Trump administration’s logic. However, the word “Sanctuary” is from the Latin “sanctuaraium,” meaning “holy.” Limiting our discussion for now to the Catholic church, the “sanctuary” is the small space in the front of the church where the altar stands, the Eucharist is held, and the Liturgy is professed. Therefore, a church by its very definition provides sanctuary to all who attend, just as schools should provide education to all who attend, as Denver Public Schools attests.

The United States stands in a precarious position, sweeping aside long-held Constitutional laws, protections for children, and the people’s right to the “free exercise thereof” for their religious worship, among other established principles of a civilized society. The current pronouncements against “birthright citizenship” imperil even the unborn, just as Jesus Christ was imperiled by King Herod, upon which Saint Joseph and the Blessed Virgin Mary had to take Him to Egypt for protection (Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Chapter 2).

Today, there must be a concerted effort in our community to stand against such denigration of our society’s young people, and in favor of the rule of law for all people, just as Denver Public Schools is standing for education for all of our children.

Luis Torres, Ph.D., member of The Weekly Issue/El Semanario Advisory Board. Dr. Torres retired, served as Deputy Provost for Metropolitan State University of Denver for Academic and Student Affairs and professor of Chicana/o Studies. Dr. Torres is a noted advocate for equity in education, policy and community efforts.