纽约州关于保障移民学生权利的指导

2025 年 12 月更新，取代 2025 年 1 月发布的指南。

纽约州总检察长办公室 (OAG)、纽约州州长凯西·霍楚尔办公室以及纽约州教育部 (SED) 共同致力于维护所有学生（包括所有非公民学生）的权利。 我们的办公室此前已就多个主题向学区和州政府机构发布了指导意见，以确保纽约的移民学生能够平等地接受教育和其他公共服务。[1] 鉴于最近我们社区面临联邦移民行动增加的威胁，我们写信重申，学校应该继续成为一个安全的避风港，欢迎所有学生并提供免费公共教育。 

本指南强调并阐明了学区根据州和联邦法律履行义务的相关资源。 虽然该指南并未涉及可能提供额外保护的地方政策，但学区应该了解管理其运营的所有政策。 如果出现有关合规性的问题，我们鼓励学区联系 SED 和 OAG。[2]

下载本指南的印刷版

英语
العربية（阿拉伯语）
বাঙালি（孟加拉语）
中文（中文）
Français（法语）
Kreyòl Ayisyen（海地克里奥尔语）
Italiano（意大利语）
한국어（韩语）
Polski（波兰语）
Русский（俄语）
Español（西班牙语）
乌尔都语（乌尔都语）
יידיש（意第绪语）

入学和注册要求 

根据纽约州法律，所有5岁至21岁未获得高中文凭的儿童均有权在其居住的地区接受免费公共教育。[3] 学区不得基于国籍、移民身份、种族或语言能力等理由拒绝入学。[4] 美国最高法院同样长期裁定，不得因学生或其父母或监护人的移民身份而拒绝其接受免费公共教育。[5] 阻碍平等接受教育机会的学校政策可能会使学区承担法律责任并破坏学校社区。

为了确保所有学生都受到纽约学校的欢迎，我们提醒学区不得设置歧视性的入学障碍或以其他方式阻止移民学生注册。[6] 因此，学校必须考虑某个地区居住的各种证明，并公开提供一份可接受的文件形式的非详尽清单。[7] 学校还被禁止要求学生提供社会保障卡或社会保障号，或入学时透露移民身份的任何信息。[8] 学校必须立即招收流动学生和无家可归的学生，即使他们缺乏居住证明、免疫接种证明、学校记录或其他通常注册所需的文件。[9] 如需有关入学和注册方面的州和联邦义务的更多指导，建议学区查阅我们的 2023 年联合招生指南。[10]

此外，联邦《麦金尼-文托无家可归者援助法案》以及《纽约教育法》及其实施条例都规定，学区有义务为无家可归或住在临时住所（包括移民收容所）的学生提供接受教育的机会。[11] 我们的 2021 年麦金尼-文托联合指导详细阐述了学区应如何履行其法定义务以满足无家可归学生的需求。[12] 它强调，这些学生有权立即入学，无论是在原学校还是在当前地点，无论他们是否在同一学区。[13] 学校负责寻找需要帮助的无家可归儿童和青少年，并且通常还必须为学生提供往返临时住所的交通。[14] 如需有关实施麦金尼-文托法案和支持无家可归学生的更多资源，鼓励学区联系纽约州无家可归学生技术和教育援助中心 (NYS-TEACHS)。[15]

收集学生信息并访问学生记录 

联邦和州法律，主要是 1974 年的《家庭教育权利和隐私法案》（FERPA），通常禁止在未经 家长同意的情况下披露个人身份信息 (PII)。[16] 在此适用的是，学校只有在 PII 构成目录信息或根据 "司法命令或合法签发的传票 "提供的情况下， 才能向执法人员公开 PII。[17] 目录信息包括学生姓名、地址和电话号码等信息。[18] 它不包括移民身份、公民身份或国籍信息或文件，除非被要求，学校不应该积极寻求收集这些信息。 如果此类信息对于特定计划参与或报告要求是必要的，则应在注册过程之后收集并尽可能匿名化。 除上述司法命令或合法签发的传票的例外情况外，[19] 学校没有义务向联邦或地方执法官员提供学生信息。[20] 

FERPA 还禁止学校在未经父母、监护人或非未成年学生事先同意的情况下向学校资源官员 (SRO) 披露有关学生移民身份信息的记录，除非在某些情况下 SRO 被视为学校官员。[21] 即便如此，自律组织机构也只能将教育记录中的 PII 用于寻求信息的合法教育目的，即促进学校安全和学生的人身安全。 我们的办公室重申，移民身份信息不用于学校安全目标或合法的教育目的。 因此，自律组织不应检查学生的学校记录以获取移民身份信息。[22] 此外，SRO 披露此类信息也可能违反 FERPA 对教育记录中 PII 披露和重新披露的限制。[23]

如果联邦或地方执法官员要求提供学生信息，学校不应泄露该信息，而应要求提供传票或该请求所依据的其他文件。 收到该通知后，学校应在披露任何学生信息之前联系其律师。[24] 学校应该将任何此类请求告知 SED 隐私办公室。[25]

此外，我们建议学区：

  • 审查他们的目录信息政策，以确保其中不包含可能无意中泄露学生移民身份的信息。 这可能包括出生地、国籍或护照信息。[26] 此外，目录信息例外是允许的，并且仅可能包括“即使披露也不会被视为有害或侵犯隐私”的信息。[27] 学区可能还希望实施有限的目录信息政策，允许教育机构“将其目录指定限制为特定方、用于特定目的，或两者兼而有之”。[28] 此外，家长和学生有权向学校索取目录信息退出表格，选择不披露目录信息；[29]

  • 重新发布学区的年度 FERPA 通知，告知父母和监护人（如果有）他们有权选择退出学区的目录信息政策，如果可能，请翻译成学区内学生的主要母语；[30]

  • 如果联邦或地方执法官员要求提供其孩子的信息，应立即通知父母或监护人（如果有）；[31] 和

  • 审查当前收集的信息，以确定这些信息是否会不必要地泄露学生或家长的移民身份，以及是否需要收集这些信息。

根据州法律，学生和家长可以向 SED 隐私办公室提出有关未经授权披露 PII 的投诉。[32] 

执法人员拘留、审讯或将学生带离学校

各种联邦和州法律，包括《纽约教育法》、《纽约家庭法院法案》以及美国最高法院的裁决 Plyler 诉 Doe，对学区施加有关拘留、审讯和将学生逐出学校的职责。 违反这些义务可能会使学区承担责任。 因此，我们的机构向学区重申并澄清了 2017 年和 2019 年的联合移民教育指导，涉及执法人员试图接触学生时应遵循的法律义务和程序。[33] 

首先，我们重申 SED 的长期立场，即执法人员不得在未经学生父母或有父母关系的人同意的情况下将学生从学校带走或审问学生，但下文所述的有限情况除外。[34] 此外，纽约州第170.1号行政命令规定，联邦移民当局的民事逮捕只能在州立设施（例如学校）内执行，并须附有司法逮捕令或授权拘留的命令，除非民事逮捕与设施内的诉讼程序有关。[35] 即使执法人员表示他们正在寻求有关学生福利的信息，这些保护措施也同样适用。[36]

此外，这些保护措施也适用于学校交通。[37] 为学生提供交通服务的校区必须 "平等地为所有情况相同的儿童 "提供交通服务、[38] 学校和学区对其监护下的学生的照管责任延伸至学校交通。[39]

当联邦或地方执法人员（包括自律执法人员）提出口头或书面要求拘留或审问学生时，学校工作人员，包括校车司机、监控人员和服务人员[40]-在履行其作为全民教育者的职责时，除了考虑任何地区的具体政策外，还应考虑以 下因素：

  1. 不允许学校内的官员接触学生，除非是为了处理迫在眉睫的安全情况或法律根据司法授权或命令要求；
  2. 请记住，官员可能会出示多种形式的文件，但并非所有文件都具有足够的法律效力来证明移交记录或授予学生访问权限。 您应该向官员索取文件。 此类文件可以采用多种形式，包括：
    1. 司法逮捕令或命令：司法逮捕令或命令由美国地区法官或联邦地方法官签署，并证明有理由相信某人犯了罪行或违法行为。[41]
    2. 行政令状：行政令状由联邦移民当局准备和签发，指示联邦官员逮捕外国人以进行驱逐出境或驱逐出境程序。[42] 它不是司法令状，也不能提供相信某人犯了罪或违法行为的可能原因，因为一般来说，非法移民留在美国并不构成犯罪。[43]
    3. 移民“拘留令”：移民拘留令通常由联邦移民当局向当地执法机构发出，要求将个人拘留长达 48 小时，超过预计释放时间。 它为联邦当局提供了更多时间来确定是否拘留该个人以进行民事移民执法程序。[44]

      此外，学校工作人员应要求查看警官的徽章或其他政府证件，并应记下警官的姓名和机构，以便保存记录。[45]
  3. 在采取任何其他行动之前，向学监和校区检察官提供该官员的信息和文件，他们将根据执法请求对这些信息和文件进行评估，并在继续行动之前等待指导；以及
  4. 立即通知学生的父母或监护人（如果有），除非特别禁止（例如，司法命令）。 

我们 2019 年的联合移民教育指南还明确了学区的职责，即确保自律组织维护无证学生上学的权利，而不必担心不利的移民后果。[46] 我们提醒学区，自律组织不得拘留或审问学生以确定其移民身份。 第四修正案禁止自律组织官员拘留或审问学生，除非自律组织官员有合理理由怀疑学生违反了学校政策或实施了威胁“学校安全的特殊需要”的非法行为。[47] 此类行动只能在学校官员的指导下进行，并且只能用于调查涉嫌违反政策或非法行为。[48] 学生的移民身份并不影响学校安全或学校政策，也不能成为在校园内拘留或审讯的理由。[49]

事实上，当这种非法行为基于学生的种族、民族、国籍、公民身份或移民身份时，也可能违反州宪法和各州和联邦民权法。[50] 允许自律组织官员违反这些法律保护的学区，将因未能对其学校的自律组织官员进行充分培训和监督而承担责任。[51]

根据纽约教育法，聘用自律组织官员的学区必须通过与利益相关者达成意见并签订书面合同或谅解备忘录 (MOU) 来正式定义其职责和责任范围。[52] 我们的办公室建议学区将保障无证学生权利的政策和程序纳入与自律组织签订的合同或谅解备忘录中，[53] 包括： 

  1. 明确规定自律组织访问和重新披露包含可能泄露学生移民身份信息的学生记录的能力的限制。 其中包括自律组织官员是否是有权查阅学生记录的“学校官员”；

  2. 禁止自律组织询问学生和学生家庭成员的移民身份的政策；
  3. 自学组织和学校人员承诺不会与移民当局分享学生或其家庭成员的实际或感知的移民身份信息，除非法律要求；[54]
  4. 禁止自律组织根据移民当局的要求拘留学生、根据民事移民令进行逮捕、响应移民当局的通知或转移请求，或以其他方式使用校园设施进行任何移民执法目的的政策，除非法律要求这样做；以及
  5. 要求所有自律组织官员在偏离前述保障措施之前，必须咨询主管或其他指定的学校官员。

欺凌和骚扰

纽约和联邦法律禁止学生或员工基于实际或感知的种族、肤色、国籍、民族、公民或移民身份等进行骚扰和欺凌。[55] 我们鼓励学区查阅我们机构关于《所有学生尊严法案》的先前指导和资源，以了解他们创建无骚扰和欺凌的学校环境的法律责任。[56] 这些义务包括：制定应对此类行为的政策；对员工进行学区政策培训并将其纳入学区的行为准则；为学生提供防止欺凌、骚扰和歧视的指导；并向 SED 报告事件。[57]

此外，纽约法律禁止因人的种族、肤色、国籍、血统、性别、宗教、年龄、残疾或性取向而针对个人或其财产实施暴力、威胁或骚扰。[58] OAG 仇恨犯罪和偏见预防部门可以对违反该法律的行为展开非刑事调查，并可以向学区提供相关资源。[59]

拘留或驱逐学生家庭成员 

无论学生的移民身份如何，他们的父母、监护人或其他家庭成员都可能被拘留或驱逐出境。鼓励校区确保所有学生及其家庭提供最新的紧急联系人信息，包括二级紧急联系人。如果移民执法影响到父母或监护人提供照料的能力，这一点就显得尤为重要。我们还建议学区制定一项计划，规定学校工作人员如何获取紧急联系人信息，并在必要时协助将学生安全送往紧急联系人处。校区可与学生及其家庭共享相关法律和社区资源信息，包括附录中提供的信息。

如果移民当局在校外与一些学生联系，他们会通知学校工作人员。如果学生收到来自移民当局的信件、电话或任何其他通信，学校工作人员应鼓励学生立即与其移民律师联系。 如果学生没有移民律师，学校可将学生转介至纽约州新美国人办公室，地址为 1-800-566-7636。

附录：资源

州长办公室为学生和家庭提供的资源

纽约州教育部资源

  • 联系州教育部隐私办公室：
    • 地址：89 Washington Avenue, EB 152, 奥尔巴尼, NY, 12234
    • 电话：518-474-0937
    • 电子邮件： Privacy@nysed.gov
  • 提出隐私投诉，指控学生的个人身份信息已被未经授权的人员披露或访问， 访问纽约州教育部门，家长和学生提交隐私投诉。
  • 如对本指南有疑问，请联系纽约州教育部法律顾问办公室：
    • 电话：518-474-6400
    • 电子邮件：legal@nysed.gov

纽约州总检察长办公室资源

[1.] Relevant immigration education guidance issued by OAG and SED includes: OAG and SED, “Dear Colleague” Letter (Feb. 27, 2017), available at https://www.nysed.gov/sites/default/files/oag-sed-letter-ice-2-27-17.pdf (“2017 Joint Immigration Education Guidance”); \OAG and SED, “Dear Colleague” Letter (Aug. 29, 2019), available at https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/joint_oag-sed_-_ice_sros_in_schools_w_ag_signature.pdf (“2019 Joint Immigration Education Guidance”); OAG and SED, “Dear Colleague” Letter (Feb. 16, 2021), available at https://www.nysed.gov/sites/default/files/programs/coronavirus/mckinney-vento-guidance.pdf (“2021 Joint McKinney-Vento Guidance”); OAG and SED, Know Your Rights and “Dear Colleague” Letter (Aug. 28, 2023), available at https://ag.ny.gov/sites/default/files/letters/kyr-ed.pdf (“2023 Joint Enrollment Guidance”); Memorandum, Jhone M. Ebert to District Superintendents et al. re: Available Guidance and Resources to Combat Harassment, Bullying and Discrimination in Schools in Light of Recent Immigration-Related Actions, SED, Feb. 27, 2017, available at https://www.p12.nysed.gov/dignityact/documents/dasa-guidance (“2017 DASA Memo”). See also SED Office of Counsel, Statement on Rights of Newly Arrived Immigrants (Aug. 15, 2023), available at https://www.nysed.gov/sites/default/files/programs/bilingual-ed/8-14-23-oc-ltr-re-new-arrivals-a.pdf. Executive Order No. 6, Oct. 8, 2021, continuing Executive Order 170 (E.O. 170), originally issued Sept. 15, 2017, available at https://www.governor.ny.gov/executive-order/no-6-continuation-and-expiration-prior-executive-orders and N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. (N.Y.C.R.R.), Tit. 9, § 8.170, respectively. E.O. 170 prohibits State officers and employees, including law enforcement officers, from inquiring about an individual’s immigration status unless necessary to determine eligibility for public benefits or required by law. E.O. 170 also prohibits State officers and employees, including law enforcement officers, from disclosing information to federal immigration authorities unless required by law. 

[2.] See Appendix for OAG and SED contact information. 

[3.] N.Y. Educ. Law §§ 3201-02, 3209; N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(4). 

[4.] N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(4); 2023 Joint Enrollment Guidance, supra note 1; see also 8 N.Y.C.R.R. 154-2.1(a) (“Each school district shall provide English language learners equal access to all school programs and services offered by the school district[.]”). 

[5.] Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982); see also Hisp. Int. Coal. v. Governor of Ala., 691 F.3d 1236, 1247 (11th Cir. 2012) (holding unconstitutional a facially neutral policy that “significantly deters undocumented children from enrolling in and attending school”) (citing Plyler, 462 U.S.). 

[6.] 2023 Joint Enrollment Guidance, supra note 1. 

[7.] Id.; 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 100.2(y). 

[8.] 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 100.2(y)(3)(i)(a). To the extent school districts must collect information relevant to immigration status pursuant to state or federal requirements, they should do so after the student is enrolled so as to avoid the suggestion that such information will be used in enrollment determinations. 2023 Joint Enrollment Guidance, supra note 1, at 1-2.  

[9.] 2023 Joint Enrollment Guidance, supra note 1; 42 U.S.C. § 11432(g)(3)(C)(i); N.Y. Educ. Law § 3209(2)(f)(2). To remain enrolled, all students must receive at least the first dose of all required vaccines within 14 days of registration. New York State Department of Health, School Vaccination Requirements (revised Aug. 2023), available at https://www.health.ny.gov/prevention/immunization/schools/school_vaccines. If a child experiencing homelessness or housing instability “needs to obtain immunizations . . . the enrolling school shall immediately refer the parent or guardian of the child or youth, or (in the case of an unaccompanied youth) the youth, to the local educational agency liaison . . . who shall assist in obtaining necessary immunizations or screenings . . .[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 11432(g)(3)(C)(iii). 

[10.] 2023 Joint Enrollment Guidance, supra note 1. 

[11.] 42 U.S.C. § 11431 et seq.; N.Y. Educ. Law § 3209 et seq. 

[12.] 2021 Joint McKinney-Vento Guidance, supra note 1. 

[13.] Id. 

[14.] 42 U.S.C. § 11432(e)(3)(E)(i)(III), (g)(6)(A)(i); N.Y. Educ. Law § 3209(4)(c); 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 100.2(x)(7)(iii)(a)(2). 

[15.] New York State Technical and Educational Assistance Center for Homeless Students (NYS-TEACHS), available at www.nysteachs.org; NYS-TEACHS helpline: 1-800-388-2014. 

[16.] 20 U.S.C. § 1232g; 34 C.F.R. § 99; N.Y. Educ. Law § 2-d; 8 N.Y.C.R.R. Part 121, § 200.5(e)(2); N.Y. Gen. Mun. Law § 805-a (prohibiting municipal officers and employees from “disclos[ing] confidential information acquired . . . in the course of [their] official duties[.]”). Revealing confidential information could also be grounds for removal, see, e.g., Appeal of Nelson, 49 Ed. Dept. Rep., Decision No. 15,964 (Aug. 14, 2009), available at https://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume49/d15964; Appeals of Ziegelbauer, 62 Ed. Dept. Rep., Decision No. 18,143 (Jul. 7, 2022), available at https://www.counsel.nysed.gov/Decisions/volume62/d18143. Cf. 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (officials may not prohibit or restrict government entities sharing, maintaining, or exchanging information on citizenship or immigration status, but does not create obligation to affirmatively collect or disclose such information). 

[17.] See generally 34 C.F.R. § 99.31. 

[18.] Memorandum, Louise DeCandia to School District Superintendents et al. re: Directory Information, SED, Jun. 7, 2023, available at https://www.nysed.gov/sites/default/files/programs/data-privacy-security/directory-guidance-final-june-2023.pdf (“DeCandia Memorandum”). 

[19.] As explained in the 2017 Joint Immigration Education Guidance, supra note 1, limited exceptions to the FERPA nondisclosure rule exist as set forth in the law’s implementing regulations. These exceptions include requests made by specifically enumerated individuals of the federal government, but only “in connection with an audit or evaluation of Federal or State supported education programs, or for the enforcement of or compliance with Federal legal requirements that relate to those programs,” and all PII must be protected “from further disclosures or other uses,” 34 C.F.R. § 99.35(a). Further, a request from ICE or other federal immigration officials to access student PII from education records would not appear to satisfy any of the FERPA exceptions to the general rule that a parent or eligible student must consent to disclosures to third parties. 

[20.] As explained in Section III, school officials should not allow federal and local law enforcement officials to remove students from the school environment for questioning. Additionally, SROs should not assist federal law enforcement officials in immigration enforcement except in the narrow and rare circumstance where there is a formal agreement between the county employing the SRO and ICE lawfully providing the authority to do so. 

[21.] 2019 Joint Immigration Education Guidance, supra note 1; 20 U.S.C. §§ 1232g(b)(2)(A), 1232g(d); 34 C.F.R. §§ 99.30, 99.31(a)(1)(i); U.S. Dep’t of Educ., Privacy Technical Assistance Center, School Resources Officers, School Law Enforcement Units, and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Question 15 at 11-12, available at https://studentprivacy.ed.gov/sites/default/files/resource_document/file/SRO_FAQs.pdf (“SROs and FERPA”). 

[22.] Id. 

[23.] 34 C.F.R. §§ 99.31(a)(1)(i); 99.33; 2019 Joint Immigration Education Guidance, supra note 1; SROs and FERPA, supra note 21. 

[24.] See 2017 and 2019 Joint Immigration Education Guidance, supra note 1. 

[25.] See Appendix for SED Privacy Office contact information. 

[26.] See 34 C.F.R. § 99.3 “Directory information.” 

[27.] See id. 

[28.] DeCandia Memorandum, supra note 18; 34 C.F.R. § 99.37(d). 

[29.] DeCandia Memorandum, supra note 18. 

[30.] Districts must provide annual notification of FERPA rights to parents. This notice, which should be conspicuously posted on school districts’ websites, must identify the district’s directory information policy and inform parents of their right to opt-out of providing such information. 2019 Joint Immigration Education Guidance, supra note 1; DeCandia Memorandum, supra note 18; 34 C.F.R. §§ 99.37(a), 99.7(a)(3)(iii). It must also disclose which categories of individuals operating on school campuses are generally considered school officials with legitimate educational interests in education records. See 34 C.F.R. § 99.7(a)(3)(iii). 

[31.] E.g. Office of the Massachusetts Attorney General, “Information for schools on ICE requests for access or information,” available at https://www.mass.gov/info-details/information-for-schools-on-ice-requests-for-access-or-information (last accessed Dec. 22, 2024). 

[32.] See Appendix for information on filing a privacy complaint with SED. 

[33.] 2017 and 2019 Joint Immigration Education Guidance, supra note 1. As used in our guidance, the terms “federal immigration authorities” and “federal immigration officials” include, but are not limited to, officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”), Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”), United States Citizenship and Immigration Services, and their subagencies (including ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations,  and the U.S. Border Patrol within CBP).   These terms also include law enforcement officers from other agencies such as the FBI, ATF, or DEA.  The term “law enforcement officer” refers generally to any federal, state, or local law enforcement officer, regardless of whether the officer is engaged in immigration enforcement. 

[34.] See id.; SED Counsel’s Opinion 67 (Mar. 7, 1952) (“[P]olice authorities have no power to interview children in the school building or to use the school facilities in connection with police department work, and the board [of education] has no right to make children available for such purpose. The police authorities must take the matter up directly with the parents.”); SED Counsel’s Opinion 91 (Jun. 17, 1959) (“[L]aw enforcement officers of any kind may not remove a child from a school building while a child is properly in attendance without permission of the child’s parents for questioning” and “law enforcement officers do not have the legal right to interrogate a pupil in the school without permission of the parents.”); see also SED Counsel’s Opinion 148 (Feb. 23, 1965) (“The school particularly does not have custody of pupils for the purpose of authorizing law enforcement officers or other third parties to interrogate pupils or to remove them from the premises for any purpose whatever.”) This position is based on various laws including, inter alia, the New York Family Court Act (NYFCA), which requires that a police officer must make every reasonable effort to immediately contact a child’s parent or anyone responsible for the child’s care when a child is taken into the custody of law enforcement, and further holds that such a child cannot be interrogated, unless and until his or her parent or guardian, if present, is advised of the child’s rights and afforded an opportunity to attend the interrogation. N.Y. Fam. Ct. Act § 305.2; see Matter of Jimmy D., 15 N.Y.3d 417 (2010). 

[35.] Executive Order 170.1, Amendment to E.O. 170, supra note 1, originally issued Apr. 25, 2018, at 9 N.Y.C.R.R. § 8.170.1. 

[36.] SED has issued separate guidance on school district procedures for supporting abuse and maltreatment investigations by child welfares agencies. SED, Access to Students by Child Protective Services Workers in a Child Abuse Investigation (Apr. 22, 2016), available at https://www.nysed.gov/sites/default/files/programs/student-support-services/memo-cps-access-to-students.pdf; SED, Regulatory Changes Pertaining to Child Protective Services Workers Conducting Interviews of Children in Schools (Nov. 29, 2016), available at https://www.nysed.gov/sites/default/files/programs/student-support-services/regulation-change-cps-interview-of-children-in-schools.pdf; see also N.Y. Soc. Serv. Law §§ 424 and 425(1); 18 N.Y.C.R.R. 432.3(i)(2)(ii). We note, however, that those procedures are specific to investigations undertaken by state and local child welfare agencies, such as county-level Child Protective Services (CPS) agencies or the Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), and do not extend to investigations run by state or federal law enforcement agencies. 

[37.] N.Y. Veh. & Traf. Law § 142 (defining school bus as vehicles used for transportation “to or from school or school activities”). 

[38.] N.Y. Educ. Law § 3635(c). 

[39.] See Pratt v. Robinson, 39 N.Y.2d 554, 560 (1976) (a school’s custodial duty to students who are threatened by third party negligence extends to busing); see also Williams v. Weatherstone, 23 N.Y.3d 384, 403 (2014) (“[t]he concept of in loco parentis is the fountainhead of the duty of care owed by a school to its students[.]”). 

[40.] See 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 156.3(a)(1), (3)-(4). 

[41.] In some circumstances, a judicial warrant may be signed by a clerk in a federal district court. Fed. R. Crim. P. 9(b). 

[42.] Requesting an officer’s name and identification serves an important public safety interest by ensuring that an individual seeking to access a student is, in fact, a law enforcement officer. Whether an officer is legally required to provide their name and identification in addition to a judicial warrant before detaining or interrogating a student may vary depending on the jurisdiction and circumstances. For example, in New York City, a police officer conducting a law enforcement activity generally must identify themselves to the subject of such activity by providing their name, rank and command.  N.Y.C. Code § 14-174(b)(1). ICE’s website states that “[a]ll ICE law enforcement officers carry badges and credentials and will identify themselves when required for public safety or legal necessity.” ICE, Immigration Enforcement Frequently Asked Questions, available at https://www.ice.gov/immigration-enforcement-frequently-asked-questions (accessed 10/1/25). 

[43.] See U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec. (DHS), Sample Form I-200, Warrant for Arrest of Alien, available at https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2017/I-200_SAMPLE.PDF, or DHS, Sample ICE Form I-205, Warrant of Removal/ Deportation, available at https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2017/I-205_SAMPLE.PDF. 

[44.] See Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 407 (2012) (citation omitted); see also People ex rel. Wells v. DeMarco, 88 N.Y.S.3d 518, 530-31 (2d Dep’t 2018). 

[45.] See, e.g., DHS, Form I-247D, Immigration Detainer—Request for Voluntary Action, available at https://www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2016/I-247D.PDF. Despite including a check-box for ICE to designate that “Probable Cause Exists that The Subject is a Removable Alien,” this does not constitute probable cause to believe that an individual has committed a crime. 

[46.] 2019 Joint Immigration Education Guidance, supra note 1. 

[47.] See id.; U.S. Const. amend. IV; In re Gregory M., 82 N.Y.2d 588, 594 (1993) (holding that the lower “reasonable suspicion” standard for searching and questioning students only applies where the search is “conducted by school officials for the special needs of school security and not for a criminal investigative purpose”); see also SED Counsel’s Opinion 148 (Feb. 23, 1965) (“The school particularly does not have custody of pupils for the purpose of authorizing law enforcement officers or other third parties to interrogate pupils or to remove them from the premises for any purposes whatever.”); see also G.M. ex rel. B.M. v. Casalduc, 982 F. Supp. 2d 1235, 1249-50 (D.N.M. 2013) (collecting Tenth Circuit cases holding that SROs act as school officials when acting to protect school security or enforce school property under the direction of a school official). 

[48.] See 2019 Joint Immigration Education Guidance. 

[49.] See id. 

[50.] See, e.g., N.Y. Const. Art. 1, § 11; N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(4); N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 40-c; Title VI, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-3520, 78 Stat. 252 (1964) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 2000d) (“Civil Rights Act”). 

[51.] See, e.g., Gonzalez ex rel. Doe v. Albuquerque Pub. Schs., No. CIV 05-580 JB/WPL, 2006 WL 1305032, at *3 (D.N.M. Jan. 17, 2006) (denying defendants’ motion to dismiss equal protection claim after SROs questioned undocumented students about their immigration status on school grounds); Benacquista v. Spratt, 217 F. Supp. 3d 588, 601-02 (N.D.N.Y. 2016) (denying motion to dismiss student’s claim that the school district failed to act or supervise an SRO). 

[52.] N.Y. Educ. Law § 2801-a(10). 

[53.] Schools are encouraged to consult New York Civil Liberties Union, Recommendations for a Memorandum of Understanding Between Schools and Police (Dec. 13, 2019), available at https://www.nyclu.org/uploads/2019/12/mou_recommendations_for_schools_and_police_0.pdf. 

[54.] We recommend school districts’ policies include language to the effect of: Nothing in this policy prohibits any local agency from sending to or receiving from any local, state, or federal agency—as per 8 U.S.C. § 1373—(i) information regarding an individual’s country of citizenship or (ii) a statement of the individual’s immigration status. 

[55.] Dignity for All Students Act (“DASA”), N.Y. Educ. Law §§ 10-18, 801-a, 2801; 8 N.Y.C.R.R. § 100.2; N.Y. Exec. Law § 296(4); Title VI, Civil Rights Act, supra note 43. These protections cover students not just on school property but also at school functions and online cyberbullying. N.Y. Educ. Law §§ 11-12. 

[56.] SED, The Dignity Act Resources, available at https://www.nysed.gov/student-support-services/dignity-act-resources; see also 2017 DASA Memo, supra note 1. 

[57.] Id.; N.Y. Educ. Law §§ 10-18. 

[58.] N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 79-n. 

[59.] See Appendix for information on filing a complaint with the OAG Hate Crimes and Bias Prevention Unit.