Fridley Pub. Sch. Dist. v. Mullin

Posted on by

Fridley Pub. Sch. Dist., Indep. Sch. Dist. 14 v. Mullin, No. 26-CV-1023 (D. Minn., filed Feb. 4, 2026)

Plaintiffs Fridley Public School, Duluth Public Schools, and Education Minnesota sued the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) along with several federal officials challenging Defendants’ January 2025 rescission of the “sensitive locations” memorandum that restricted immigration enforcement at or near schools. Plaintiffs’ complaint set out several instances of enforcement actions at or near schools in Minnesota. Plaintiffs noted that children, parents, and teachers fear going to school regardless of their immigration status following this rescission and that Minnesota schools have reported large reductions in attendance since the beginning of “Operation Metro Surge.”

In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that the January 2025 rescission is arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for failing to explain the departure from prior policy and for failing to consider reliance interests or alternatives. The complaint that Defendants violated the APA by failing to use a notice-and-comment process to rescind the longstanding sensitive locations policy. Finally, Plaintiffs asserted that the January 2025 policy is final agency action that has already injured Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that the 2025 policy is unlawful and vacatur of that policy. Plaintiffs also sought a preliminary stay of the changed policy.

In their brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ stay motion and motion for a preliminary injunction, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs had not shown a legally sufficient injury as a result of the January 2025 guidance, and that Plaintiffs cannot challenge this internal enforcement guidance under the APA. Defendants also argued that the enforcement policy does not directly regulate the school districts and that the previous policy regarding sensitive locations did not confer legally enforceable rights. Further, Defendants argued that the January 2025 guidance is within DHS’ discretion.

The district court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a stay and preliminary injunction on May 6, 2026. In its decision, the court held that none of the plaintiffs established a traceable, cognizable harm and that the court could not redress the harms alleged. The court also found that Plaintiffs had not shown a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits and that Plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm. The court further expressed in its denial that the prior guidance did not categorically preclude enforcement at or near locations such as schools but, rather, just discouraged such enforcement.

The court subsequently set a schedule for dispositive motions. As of June 2026, those motions have yet to be filed by either party.

Documents:

Counsel: Democracy Forward Foundation | Zimmerman Reed LLP | The Law Office of Kevin C. Riach | Nilan Johnson Lewis PA

Contact: Elena Goldstein (egoldstein@democracyforward.org) | Sean Ouellette (souellette@democracyforward.org)