Denial of an education based on immigration status prohibited, and civil cause of action provided when right to education is denied based on immigration status.
HF3409 would prohibit Minnesota schools from denying a free public K-12 education to a child based on the child’s actual or perceived immigration status, or based on the immigration status of a parent or guardian. The bill also bars schools from excluding students or parents from programs, activities, or parental engagement opportunities on that basis, and restricts schools from collecting or designating immigration-related information as directory information unless required by law.
The bill further requires schools to adopt procedures by July 1, 2027, for handling requests from law enforcement agents seeking entry to a school or school facility. Those procedures must include review by a designated school official, possible consultation with legal counsel, documentation of interactions, and notice to a parent or guardian—or to an adult or emancipated student—when immigration enforcement access is requested, except where a judicial warrant or subpoena limits disclosure. It also creates a civil cause of action for violations, allowing affected parties to seek damages, injunctive relief, mandamus, and attorney fees, with no requirement to exhaust administrative remedies first.
The bill would add a new section to Minnesota Statutes chapter 120A and amend section 13.319 to cross-reference the new protections for student immigration-status data. It would impose new compliance duties on school districts, charter schools, and cooperative units regarding enrollment, nondiscrimination, data handling, and law-enforcement access procedures. It also creates enforceable private rights, exposing schools to lawsuits, damages, injunctions, and attorney-fee awards if they deny educational access or fail to follow the required procedures.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available materials. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears strongly protective of immigrant students and families and is framed as implementing constitutional education rights recognized in Plyler v. Doe. The overall tone is rights-protective and school-safety oriented rather than punitive.
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s restrictions on school cooperation with immigration enforcement, its limits on collecting or disclosing immigration-related information, and the creation of a private right of action with damages and attorney fees. Supporters would likely emphasize equal access to education, student safety, and preventing fear or intimidation at school, while critics may focus on administrative burden, local control concerns, and whether the notice and access procedures could conflict with law-enforcement or federal immigration-related requests.