In a statement released from Indianapolis, Rokita accused IPS of hindering the efforts of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to deport an individual who had agreed to leave the United States voluntarily. This incident reportedly occurred in January. Despite a warning issued by Rokita in February regarding what he described as “unlawful policies,” he claims that the district persists in violating Indiana’s anti-sanctuary law.

“Sanctuary policies are detrimental in any scenario, but they pose a significant threat within our educational institutions,” Rokita expressed. “Schools nationwide are at risk of being infiltrated by criminal illegal aliens—a situation documented in numerous states. It is crucial for ICE to have the ability to act decisively in such instances to safeguard our children. This lawsuit, supported by the America First Policy Institute (AFPI), aims to ensure that IPS adheres to state law and prioritizes the safety of Hoosier schoolchildren.”

The America First Policy Institute, a think tank with strong ties to former President Donald Trump, is providing special counsel in this legal action. The complaint, filed in Marion County Superior Court, outlines specific IPS policies alleged to be in violation of state legislation.

The America First Police Institute (AFPI), a think tank closely aligned with President Donald Trump, joined the lawsuit as a special counsel. 

According to the complaint filed in Marion County Superior Court, IPS has the following policies that defy state law: 

• IPS policies provide that IPS employees “shall not assist immigration enforcement efforts unless legally required and authorized to do so by the Superintendent.” 
• IPS and its staff will not collect, maintain, or share any information concerning students’, students’ parents’ or school employees’ immigration statuses. 
• IPS policies prohibit federal immigration authorities from accessing nonpublic areas on school property in the absence of a judicial warrant or exigent circumstances.

The complaint claims that all of these are illegal policies because: 

• State law prohibits restricting local government employees from engaging in activities related to enforcement of immigration laws. 
• State law prohibits policies that restrict local government employees’ ability to communicate and cooperate with requests for information on immigration status. 
• On the third claim, Rokita says IPS doesn’t need to restrict access for immigration officials which is “impermissible.” 

The complaint says that a Honduran national was scheduled to be deported on Jan. 8. The immigrant’s child went to an IPS school “in apparent disregard of his father’s wish that they depart the country together that afternoon.” It is unclear if the child was a Honduran national or a United States citizen. 

When ICE officers went to IPS to collect the child, IPS said agents could not collect the child without a warrant. An IPS teacher allegedly put the child in contact with an immigration lawyer. The child ended up leaving school with the immigration attorney, and the father’s voluntary deportation order expired without him leaving the country. 

It is unclear, from the complaint, if ICE ever sought or provided the warrant IPS demanded.

The complaint alleges that IPS has a close working relationship with IMPD, including a memorandum of understanding, in contrast to its relationship with ICE. 

The complaint asks a judge to issue an injunction forcing IPS to change its policies to be more cooperative with ICE. 

Reporters reached out to an IPS representative for comment on the lawsuit. Their response will be added when it is received.