Education
Republican Education Chief Stands Firm Against Trump’s Immigration Order

The Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction, Tom Horne, has voiced strong opposition to a recent directive from the Trump administration that permits immigration officials to conduct enforcement actions in schools. Horne warns that this policy could deter families from sending their children to school, citing fears of potential repercussions for students and their parents.
Horne emphasized that even if children are in the country illegally, it should not be held against them. “It’s not their fault,” he stated. He further articulated that this directive threatens to undermine the landmark 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case, Plyler v. Doe, which guarantees educational access for all children, regardless of their legal status.
On Tuesday, Benjamine Huffman, recently appointed by Trump as the acting head of the Department of Homeland Security, rescinded a 2021 policy established under the previous administration that restricted enforcement actions in sensitive locations, including schools. Huffman’s comments suggest a shift in how the agency will operate, stating, “Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches.”
This directive coincided with Trump’s executive order aiming to redefine birthright citizenship, potentially affecting the legal status of children born in the U.S. to undocumented parents. Horne expressed skepticism about the enforcement of this new policy within schools, suggesting that ICE agents may primarily target parents rather than students.
The consensus among several officials, including Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes, is that ICE operations on school grounds are inappropriate. Mayes’ press secretary, Richie Taylor, pointed out that there are less disruptive methods to enforce immigration laws that would not interfere with children’s education or medical services.
Taylor advised school officials to consult legal experts and inform parents about potential immigration enforcement actions. Mayes has publicly stated her intent to challenge Trump’s administration whenever constitutional violations arise, recently joining efforts against the directive on citizenship.
Although a challenge to the new ICE enforcement policy isn’t currently planned, Taylor noted that future actions would depend on actual implementation. Horne remains focused on the implications of Plyler v. Doe, emphasizing the necessity for all children to receive public education, a stance supported by the Supreme Court’s protection of individual rights regardless of immigration status.
The Plyler case originated from a Texas law in 1975 that sought to deny state funding for the education of undocumented students. The Supreme Court ruled that such discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause, affirming that all individuals, irrespective of their immigration status, are entitled to legal protections.
Despite the court’s ruling, some lawmakers in Arizona have attempted to challenge this precedent. In 2009, then-Senator Russell Pearce proposed a measure that would require schools to verify the legal status of students, claiming it was necessary to assess the financial impact on taxpayers. However, he also admitted that one of his goals was to challenge the Plyler ruling itself.