The Brief

In the first months of the first Trump administration in 2017, a father in Los Angeles was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) after dropping his 12-year-old daughter off at school.

The ripple effect was immediate.

“Right away there was a drop in attendance in L.A. schools because parents were thinking, ‘Oh, if I drop off my kids, ICE is going to pick me up,’” said Ana Mendoza, senior staff attorney at ACLU of Southern California and director of the organization’s Education Equity Project. “The need for safety and sanctuary policies became really salient because students weren’t going to schools or families were tentative about their participation in schools.”

In the wake of this year’s presidential election, there is again widespread uncertainty among immigrant families in California about what is to come, given President-elect Donald Trump’s promises of mass deportation.

State Attorney General Rob Bonta recently released updated guidelines and model policies about what K-12 schools, colleges and universities can and cannot do under state and federal law, regarding keeping immigrant students and families’ data private, when to allow an immigration enforcement officer on campus, how to respond to the detention or deportation of a student’s family member, and how to respond to bullying or harassment of a student based on immigration status.

The original guidelines and policies were released in 2018 by then-Attorney General Xavier Becerra, after California passed Assembly Bill 699, requiring schools to pass policies that limited collaboration with immigration enforcement. Bonta is now asking schools to update their policies.

“School districts should be examining what their board policies are and to make sure they’re updated and take any measures to make sure that families feel safe,” Mendoza said.

An estimated 1 in 10, or 1 million, children in California have at least one undocumented parent. And about 133,000 children in California public schools are undocumented themselves, according to the Migration Policy Institute.

In California’s colleges and universities, an estimated 86,800 students are undocumented, and about 6,800 employees in TK-12 schools, colleges and universities have temporary work permits and protection from deportation under Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, according to the Higher Ed Immigration Portal.

“Undocumented students and faculty and staff are afraid for their safety, and this will impact their retention and enrollment in higher education if they’re not feeling safe or they’re feeling targeted,” said Luz Bertadillo, director of campus engagement for the Presidents’ Alliance for Higher Education and Immigration, a national organization of college and university leaders. “For campuses to have a strong stance on what they’re doing to support undocumented students is important, or at least letting their students know they’re thinking about them and they’re taking action. Even though they cannot guarantee their safety, at least they’re taking those initiatives to safeguard.”

What rights do immigrant students and family members have at school and college, regardless of their immigration status?

The right to attend public school 

All children present in the United States, regardless of immigration status, have a right to attend public school. In 1982, the Supreme Court ruled in the case Plyler v. Doe that states cannot deny students a free, public education based on their immigration status or their parents or guardians’ immigration status. Some states — including California in 1994 with Proposition 187 — and school districts have since attempted to pass laws that would either deny enrollment to students who did not have valid immigration status or report their status to authorities, but all these laws have been struck down by courts.

California schools are not allowed to request or collect information about Social Security numbers, immigration status or U.S. citizenship when enrolling students. Students and parents do not have to answer questions from schools about their immigration status, citizenship or whether they have a Social Security number.

“This often comes up in requests for student documents,” Mendoza said. “I had an intake once where a parent gave a passport during enrollment, and the front office person was asking the parent for a visa. No. The school has no right to ask for documents about your citizenship or immigration status.”

Schools can ask for some information like a student’s place of birth, when they first came to the U.S. or attended school in the U.S., in order to determine whether a student is eligible for special federal or state programs for recently arrived immigrant students or English learners. However, parents are not required to give schools this information, and schools cannot use this information to prevent children from enrolling in school. The Office of the Attorney General suggests that schools should collect this information separately from enrolling students.

Privacy of school records

The federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA, restricts schools from sharing students’ personal information in most cases with other agencies or organizations, including federal immigration authorities. The law requires that schools get a parent or guardian’s consent before releasing any student information to another agency or organization, or if the student is 18 or older, schools must get consent from the student.

However, in some cases, schools may be required to provide information without consent in response to a court order or judicial subpoena.

Colleges are also restricted from sharing information except in certain cases. Bertadillo said her organization recommends that college leaders have conversations with all the different departments that might manage information about students’ or families’ immigration status, such as information technology, admissions, registrar, and financial aid, to review their practices for storing or sharing the data.

“We hear some campuses have citizenship status on their transcripts and those transcripts get sent to graduate schools, to jobs, and that’s essentially outing students,” Bertadillo said.

She said it’s important for colleges and schools to pass or revisit procedures about what to do if immigration officials ask for data or attempt to enter a campus.

“A lot of institutions created them back in Trump 1.0. We’re recommending they reaffirm or revisit them, so that the campus knows that this is in place,” Bertadillo said.

Safe haven at school

The Department of Homeland Security has designated schools and colleges as protected areas where immigration enforcement should be avoided as much as possible. President-elect Trump has said he may rescind this policy.

In the event that ICE officers do enter schools or ask to question students, the attorney general’s guidelines say school staff should ask officers for a judicial warrant. Without a judicial warrant, school staff are not required to give an ICE officer permission to enter the school or conduct a search, or to provide information or records about a student or family, the guidelines say.

A bill introduced by state Sen. Lena Gonzalez, D-Long Beach, and State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond would establish a “safe zone” of 1 mile around schools and prohibit schools from allowing ICE to enter a campus or share information without a judicial warrant.

Under California law, schools must notify parents or guardians if they release a student to a law-enforcement officer, except in cases of suspected child abuse or neglect.

California law does not require schools to notify parents or guardians before law enforcement officers question a child at school, but it does not prohibit schools from notifying them either. California’s attorney general suggests that school districts and charter schools should create policies that require notification of parents or guardians before a law enforcement officer questions or removes a student, unless that officer has a judicial warrant or court order.

In addition, the attorney general says if a police officer or immigration agent tries to enter a school or talk to a student for purposes of immigration enforcement, the superintendent or principal should e-mail the Bureau of Children’s Justice in the California Department of Justice.

“Schools should retrain their staff on their visitor management policies, to make sure everyone who comes onto campus, including law enforcement, is questioned about what their purpose is, and that school staff is trained on what to do if law enforcement asks to see information about students or staff,” said Mendoza.

Support from school if a family member is detained or deported

If a student reports that their parents or guardians were detained or deported, California law requires that the school must follow parents’ instructions about whom to contact in an emergency. The attorney general’s guidance says “schools should not contact Child Protective Services unless the school is unsuccessful in arranging for the care of the child through the emergency contact information.”

The guidance also suggests that schools should help students and family members contact legal assistance, their consulate, and help them locate their detained family members through ICE’s detainee locator system.

Mendoza said it is important to note that if a student’s parents are detained or deported, and as a result they have to go live with another family member, at that point, they are eligible for support for homeless students under the federal McKinney-Vento Act.

Protection from discrimination and harassment

Federal law prohibits discrimination and harassment based on race, national origin, color, sex, age, disability and religion. California’s law AB 699 also made immigration status a protected characteristic, meaning that schools are required to have policies that prohibit discrimination, harassment and bullying based on immigration status.

Mendoza said it’s important for families and students who experience bullying or harassment to know they can submit complaints through their schools or to different agencies in California. “There are advocates out there willing to support them if their schools do not act in accordance with best practices or with the law,” Mendoza said.

Free lunch, subsidized child care and special education

In California, all students have a right to a free school lunch, since the 2022-23 school year. In addition, some students whose families are considered low-income qualify for subsidized child care, either all day for infants and preschoolers, or after school for school-age children. Students with disabilities have a right to special education to meet their needs, under federal law.

Immigrant families are often afraid to apply for public services because they are worried this will count against them when applying for permanent residency. This is largely due to the “public charge” test, which immigration officers use to determine whether green-card applicants are likely to depend on public benefits.

Currently, immigration officers can only consider whether applicants have used cash assistance for income, like SSI or CalWORKs, or long-term institutionalized care paid for by public insurance, such as Medi-Cal. They do not consider school lunch, child care or food stamps. And officers are not allowed to look at whether applicants’ family members, like U.S. citizen children, use public benefits. During the first Trump administration, the president changed this policy to include family members and some other benefits. It is unclear whether he may attempt to change this again in the future. However, even under the changes during his first term, school lunch and child care were not included.

In-state tuition and scholarships for college

Under the California Dream Act, undocumented students qualify for in-state tuition and state financial aid at California colleges and universities if they attended high school for three or more years or attained credits at community college or adult school and graduated from high school or attained an associate degree or finished minimum transfer requirements at a California community college. The number of students applying for the California Dream Act has plummeted in recent years.

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

On most weekday afternoons at the Expo Park/USC Metro station outside the University of Southern California, the platform feels like an extension of campus life. People are usually bunched up in pairs or groups. Many wear USC crewneck sweatshirts and talk about campus life as they straddle the edges between downtown Los Angeles and the classroom. What they aren’t talking about are their cars or debating the pros and cons of taking an Uber versus a Waymo. 

“Ubering is expensive every time I’m going somewhere, it’s at least gonna be $30,” Jaiden Torres told The LA Local. Torres is a third-year student at Hofstra University doing a semester in Los Angeles. 

He said a car is the last thing on his mind as he navigates the city. “That’s money that I could be spending on other things. So I try to opt out to take the train.”

For many young Angelenos, the Los Angeles Metro isn’t a last resort. It’s how they move through the city. They’re embracing transit even as the system evolves and works to rebuild ridership and public trust.

More than 500,000 students, including community college students, across L.A. County now ride Metro through its GoPass program, with nearly 60 million student boardings since 2021. Metro says its overall ridership has also continued to recover since the pandemic, reaching more than 82% of pre-pandemic levels in January 2025 and extending a run of more than two years of growth.

In a statement, Metro attributed that increase in ridership to improvements in service, safety and a return of public confidence in the system. 

For Josh Figueroa, a first-year urban planning major at the USC, transit is both a classroom topic and a daily necessity. Originally from Riverside, he moved to L.A. this year without a car and now relies on Metro to get around.

“In terms of getting where I need to go, the Metro is very reliable,” he told The LA Local. “And, because I’m a student, it’s free.”

And it’s not just USC students. Since 2016, Metro has offered a U-Pass partnership that allows students to get unlimited or discounted rides with their TAP cards. The program went from one major university in 2017 to nearly two dozen schools in 2025. 

Jacob Wasserman is a research program manager at UCLA’s Institute of Transportation Studies. He told The LA Local that by offering passes, schools are helping create a culture of students using the Metro.  

“At UCLA, every undergrad and grad student gets a pass. It makes the transit agency money because [schools] buy it for everybody, and the people who do use it get a ton of value. It’s effectively free,” he said. 

For students juggling tuition, rent and groceries, the savings matter.

“I’m definitely more inclined to take the Metro than an Uber because of finances,” Figueroa said. “It’s way cheaper to take the Metro.”

Figueroa also feels more a part of L.A. when riding. “I feel more in connection with a community or in connection with a city when I’m taking the resources and the transportation that they provide,” he said. 

But there are drawbacks. 

On most weekday afternoons at the Expo Park/USC Metro station outside the University of Southern California, the platform feels like an extension of campus life. People are usually bunched up in pairs or groups. Many wear USC crewneck sweatshirts and talk about campus life as they straddle the edges between downtown Los Angeles and the classroom. What they aren’t talking about are their cars or debating the pros and cons of taking an Uber versus a Waymo.

Trains vs cars

L.A.’s landscape is built around cars and freeways, with many Metro stops located in inconvenient places. “It’s hard to fit a transit system into land use that’s built around the car, because you may have to walk that last mile, and if there isn’t just much around, it can be unsafe,” Wasserman said. 

Figueroa has personally experienced this. “A lot of places I want to go, like a food spot somewhere, I’d need to drive because the Metro stops are in inconvenient places. If I get off at a Metro stop, I might have to walk 30 minutes to an hour,” he said. 

But that may change. New Metro expansions are working to connect the city more efficiently.

Metro’s “28 by 28” initiative aims to complete 28 major public rail transportation projects before the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, including rail extensions, new light-rail segments and rapid bus transit lines. 

Nine projects have been completed so far, including the A Line (formerly the Gold Line) Foothill Extension to Pomona. “[The A Line] is great for connecting college students out there,” Wasserman said. 

He added that these projects are meant to serve everyday riders. “The difference that we’re seeing for the 28 Olympics is that a lot of these projects, even the bus projects, are designed to be Olympic supporting, but also legacy projects beyond that,” Wasserman said. 

Wasserman hopes Metro’s expansion will help keep Angelenos connected across the city and is optimistic about its future.

“We’re really ambitiously expanding our rail system,” he said. “If it can work in L.A., it can work anywhere in the U.S.”

But another major issue affecting ridership is around safety. 

Commuter safety concerns

Figueroa noted that Metro stations with the fewest riders feel less safe.

“In urban places that don’t have a lot of people, there’s this idea of having less eyes on the street. When you have less eyes and less people watching, people tend to feel unsafe because they feel alone. It’s very prevalent on the Metro,” Figueroa said.

Torres noted the difference between the buses and trains in L.A. 

“I feel a lot safer on the train than on the bus. On trains, if it feels unsafe, I can move to the next car. But on the bus you’re kind of stuck,” he said. 

Transit agencies are paying attention to these concerns. Wasserman conducted a research project into the L.A. Metro Transit Ambassador Pilot Program, which provides a visible, customer-focused presence at stations and on vehicles. 

“I think the ambassador program is working well. They’re just like extra eyes, so you’re not in an empty station,” Wasserman said. “They are also doing more serious stuff. They carry Narcan and address overdoses.” 

Figueroa has noticed the changes. “I definitely feel safer. I don’t feel like I’m in danger or threatened,” he said. 

The UCLA report concluded that Metro was “wise to consider, pilot, and now make permanent” the ambassador program. 

The continuous improvements are also shaping how young people view the city itself. “I feel like [by taking the train] I’m getting to observe the working class or day-to-day people of L.A.,” Torres said.

Most Orange County residents favor offering undocumented residents a pathway to legal status rather than blanket deportation, according to a new poll from the University of California, Irvine School of Social Ecology. But that’s not true for a majority of Republicans (54%), who favor deportation, the poll found.

Jon Gould, dean of the School of Social Ecology, said the poll demonstrates the stark difference in public opinion on immigration between Republicans on one side, and Democrats and independents on the other.

“ Majorities are very much in favor of immigration, paths to legal citizenship, and are hesitant to use the enforcement power too strongly," Gould said of the poll results. “It’s surprising in a purple county that we’re seeing both a strong majority one way, and a cleavage where one of the political parties [Republican] is off by itself compared to independents and Democrats.”

Orange County is considered “purple” because the county’s 2 million voters are nearly evenly split, with one-third each registered as Republican or Democrat, and another third registered as No Party Preference or with a smaller political party.

There was agreement across political parties on some issues, Gold said. The majority of respondents agreed that violent criminals should automatically be deported, and that immigrants who are U.S. veterans should never be deported.

UC Irvine School of Social Ecology polled 1,200 Orange County adults on immigration issues in March 2026.

(

Courtesy UC Irvine School of Social Ecology

/

LAist

)

Gould also said the poll of some 1,200 adults demonstrates the nuanced opinions that most residents have on the subject of immigration. For example, a majority of all respondents (61%) support limiting immigration from countries the government deems dangerous or unstable.

Results of the UC Irvine poll on immigration show agreement across party lines on some nuanced questions.

(

Courtesy: UC Irvine School of Social Ecology

/

LAist

)

Some other key takeaways:

• While 62% of respondents said they disapproved of President Donald Trump’s handling of immigration issues, a smaller margin, 55%, disapproved of his handling of the U.S.-Mexico border.
• A majority said immigration fills essential low-wage jobs (76%) and enhances civic life (67%). A plurality also said immigration strains public services (48%).
• Only small percentages of all respondents said they supported automatic deportation for immigrants convicted of non-violent crimes (23%), unemployed immigrants (16%), recent arrivals (11%), and non-English speakers (10%). 
• On the question of ICE, 73% of Republicans said they supported the agency’s actions, whereas 67% of Democrats and 40% of independents said the agency should be abolished.

Implications for the upcoming elections and immigration reform

Trump’s aggressive immigration enforcement has taken a heavy toll in Orange County. Some families have lost breadwinners to deportation, while others have sought to limit their exposure by quitting jobs and staying indoors. Spending in the county decreased by about one-quarter of a percent immediately after enforcement ramped up last year, according to a separate UC Irvine study. That led to a $4.5 million decline in sales tax over an eight-week period, the study found.

Students protest ICE on Jan. 27, 2026 in front of Anaheim City Hall.

(

Jill Replogle

/

LAist

)

A growing number of cities, plus the county itself, have set aside funds to support immigrant residents with basic needs and legal services.

This support reflects what Gould called a “sea change” in public opinion since 1994, when two-thirds of Orange County voters cast ballots in favor of excluding undocumented immigrants from public education and other public services. That ballot initiative, Proposition 187, was ultimately found to be unconstitutional and never went into effect.

Gould said the majority of respondents’ positive views on immigration in the recent poll shows how much the county has changed. It’s also a reflection of the vast demographic shifts that have occurred in the county in recent decades as a result of immigration and refugee arrivals from countries like Vietnam.

Nearly 40% of residents polled said both of their parents were born in another country; 82% of Asians polled said both parents were born in another country.

Slightly more than one-third of respondents said they personally knew someone who is undocumented.

Gould thinks the results of the polling bode well for the prospects for immigration reform — despite decades of failure in Washington to strike a deal between Republicans and Democrats. The shift in public opinion might not lead to change in policy yet, Gould said, “but politicians generally follow where the wind’s blowing.”

 “At a time where we're being led to believe that immigration pits people against one another, it's intractable, these battles will go on forever," he said. "I actually think what we're seeing in the data here is that there is a supermajority support for a number of policies on immigration. There is actually potentially a solution here.”

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Jacque Langston was driving down Manchester Boulevard in Inglewood when he came face-to-face with an odd sight: sea creatures floating across one of the city’s new, spiraling digital billboards. 

“Why am I looking at jellyfish? That has nothing to do with me,” said Langston, an Inglewood native. For Langston, the video billboards that have come to dominate stretches of Inglewood’s major roads are a square peg in a round hole.

“The city has never been touched like that,” Langston said. “Now you’ve got a mini-Vegas.” 

A digital billboard is seen on La Cienega Blvd. at Florence Ave. in Inglewood on April 18, 2026, in Los Angeles.

(

Dania Maxwell

/

The LA Local

)

Video billboards have proliferated in Inglewood in recent years, targeting the influx of people driving into the city for concerts and sporting events at SoFi Stadium, the Intuit Dome and the Kia Forum. 

Last summer, though, they became a flashpoint for a series of lawsuits that revealed fractures in the once-close relationship between the city and its major entertainment venues. The various parties are now fighting over lucrative advertising territory as major international sporting events approach.

That legal drama — reported last week by The LA Local — also threatens to undo the contract that underpins SoFi Stadium’s financial relationship with the city. 

Langston and other Inglewood residents might get a chance to weigh in on the billboards in November’s election, due to a proposed ballot initiative that would bar most advertisements on public streets. But that ballot initiative itself has now prompted its own potentially costly legal fight involving the city, which receives a steadily increasing stream of revenue from billboard companies, and people with ties to the billionaire-owned stadiums.

Meanwhile, the bright LED video screens have divided local opinion. 

Vanessa Cowan, an Inglewood resident, said the gleaming screens are a sign of progress in the city. “I like them,” she said. “It has a different look.” 

A person walks past a digital billboard on Prairie Avenue in Inglewood on April 18, in Los Angeles.

(

Dania Maxwell

/

The LA Local

)

Khnum Alexander, owner of Swank Men’s Fashion on Manchester, called the billboards “monstrosities” and said advertising on the screens is too expensive for small businesses like his. He also questioned the new, twisting screens that billboard company WOW Media has recently begun to install in groups of three across the city.

“Do we really need more?” he asked. 

Down the street from Alexander’s menswear store, EZ Will Driving School owner Will McDaniel felt differently.

“I’m all for it,” McDaniel said. “People are afraid of change. Change to them feels awkward.” 

If city leaders have their way, the Billboard Blight Elimination and Neighborhood Preservation Initiative won’t make it to voters this fall.

“What is packaged as an initiative by and for Inglewood residents appears to be a product of avaricious puppeteering by a billionaire developer,” lawyers retained by the city wrote in a March 4 court complaint filed in an attempt to block the initiative. 

That developer, the city’s lawyers contend, was SoFi Stadium owner Stan Kroenke. Attorneys later amended the complaint to include Intuit Dome owner Steve Ballmer.

“Voter suppression”

In February, Inglewood resident Shannon Roberts filed to circulate a petition to prohibit commercial billboards on public streets, sidewalks and medians. The petition, a step towards getting the billboard initiative on the ballot in November, also seeks to prohibit business arrangements for the city to profit from billboard deals. 

“Public spaces belong to people, not billboard companies,” Roberts wrote, adding advertising should instead prioritize public safety messaging, such as emergency alerts, not advertising for profit.

“Inglewood should not be for sale to billboard companies for decades at a time — especially when such arrangements permanently alter the character of our beautiful city and erase the legacy of those who fought to preserve our neighborhoods,” Roberts wrote.

Roberts did not respond to a request for comment. When The LA Local reached out to her lawyer, a veteran campaign spokesperson responded.  

John Shallman has been a consultant in Southern California politics for decades and formerly worked for the Clippers when they moved to the Intuit Dome. 

He is now working with Roberts to get the anti-billboard initiative on the ballot; their website and campaign are called Inglewood Not for Sale.

He said he’s never seen a city sue one of its residents over an idea they’re attempting to put before voters.

“It’s voter suppression,” Shallman told The LA Local. “You can run a campaign against it, but trying to stop it from getting in front of citizens at all, that’s a big red flag. We’re all about voter empowerment. They’re the public’s streets, parks and medians. They control how they’re used and how they’re sold.”

Inglewood Mayor James Butts did not return a request for comment. The city’s lawyers argued in court filings that the initiative shouldn’t be allowed to go before voters because it would unconstitutionally restrict speech, lay out illegal zoning guidelines and hurt the city’s contract with WOW Media, the company that controls many of Inglewood’s billboards. 

Shallman believes that the Inglewood City Council cut a bad deal in April 2025 with WOW Media when the city approved a 20-year contract, which can be extended for decades. “It’s sort of biblical in its length of time,” he said. “The city decided that the profit of one company is far more important than the residents who will have to live with these billboards.”

The campaign has already collected several thousand signatures, Shallman said. 

Shallman dismissed the city’s accusations that the coalition he works with does not authentically represent Inglewood’s residents. Though Roberts’ name is on the initiative, the filing fee was paid for by Gerard McCallum II, a longtime associate of Hollywood Park.

Shallman said the initiative is raising money from all sorts of supporters, including those tied to the Rams and Clippers professional sports teams.

“You’re talking about an insignificant sum of money that pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars that will be spent to sue this Inglewood resident,” Shallman said of the filing fee.

Inglewood’s November election could be packed

WOW Media is opposing the billboard initiative through its own campaign, Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability. 

CEO Scott Krantz wrote in a statement to The LA Local that the billboard initiative, which does not include stadium billboards, would deprive the city of up to $2 billion in revenue over 40 years.

“The stadiums share none of their advertising revenue with Inglewood residents. We trust the people of Inglewood to see the stadium owner billionaire’s scam for exactly what it is,” Krantz wrote.

Krantz and Inglewood Residents for Stadium Accountability are also backing a pair of initiatives that could have a big impact on stadiums’ bottom line: The initiatives seek to remove admissions tax caps for large venues and limit how much some parking lots can charge during major events. 

Longtime Mayor Butts is also up for reelection in November, as are Councilmembers Gloria Gray and Alex Padilla and a few school board members. 

Wherever the votes land, Inglewood’s rapid transformation doesn’t appear to be slowing down. 

“Times are changing around here,” said Rick Todd, who sat at a table on Manchester Boulevard on Thursday, selling jugs of soursop tea. Up the street, a video billboard flicked between an Inglewood police recruitment poster and an ad for “The Devil Wears Prada 2.” “This goes along with it.”