Understanding & Communicating the Strategy Behind the Rollbacks

Federal threats to education access and equity aren’t simply technical legal shifts.

They’re a coordinated, deliberate attempt to shrink protections, redraw who “belongs” in public schools, and reinforce racial, gender, and cultural hierarchies in classrooms and communities across the country.

Legal scholars, historians, and civil rights advocates make clear: These aren’t legal or compliance debates. They’re about defining whose children, families, and communities are valued, worthy, and truly “American.”

These threats and rollbacks are a deliberate attempt to: 

1. Restore a narrow, racialized vision of America

• Undo civil rights: The Regulatory Review describes the “War on DEI” as an effort to undo decades of civil rights progress by reframing equity itself as illegal.
  https://www.theregreview.org/2025/03/11/the-war-on-dei
• Reinforce white cultural norms: Demanding that only “merit” or “race-neutral” initiatives are valid serves to reinforce dominant cultural norms and delegitimize equity efforts rooted in lived experience and systemic and structural inequities.

2. Reassert structural and systemic power

• Reproduction of power: Federal threats and attempts to rollback of equity supports and infrastructure fit a pattern of “reproduction” of power: institutions retreat, privilege consolidates, and marginalized voices are erased from institutional decisions.
• White backlash: The push against DEI is frequently interpreted as a modern phase of “white backlash” — resistance to progress in civil rights.
  https://allyfromnola.medium.com/how-the-anti-dei-movement-is-a-textbook-case-of-white-backlash-6a44f3bd26bd
• “What Is Replacing DEI? Racism.” (Chronicle of Higher Education) : Explores how the retreat from DEI signals the re-entrenchment of racial power dynamics.
  https://www.chronicle.com/article/what-is-replacing-dei-racism

3. Weaponize law to reinforce racial and cultural hierarchy

Legal scholars at SSRN describe the “war on DEI” as an ideological move, not doctrinal necessity, aimed at reinforcing power and dismantling decades of equity advances.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5395361

4. Target gender identity to reassert heteronormativity

• The Williams Institute documents how redefining Title IX to exclude gender identity undermines trans students’ safety, belonging, and educational outcomes.
  https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/dei-schools-eo-impact

5. Marginalize immigrant and multilingual students

• The rescission of English Learner guidance signals that language access is optional—not a civil right—despite long-standing Supreme Court rulings. Civil rights groups warn this is an attempt to push immigrant families out of full participation in public life.
  • TESOL International: https://www.tesol.org/news/tesol-statement-on-the-rescission-of-guidance-on-serving-multilingual-learners-of-english-in-us-public-schools

What this Means for Minnesota Schools

Minnesota law is clear: every student has the right to belong, to be affirmed, and to thrive in safe, inclusive schools.

Districts are not only permitted but required to prevent discrimination, reduce racial and economic disparities, support multilingual learners, provide language access, and train educators to serve diverse classrooms and affirm every learner’s cultural, racial, gender, and linguistic identities.

School leaders and educators should use that authority boldly. Name the harms of exclusion. Protect and affirm student identities. And keep equity work lawful, documented, and strong, not in spite of federal rollbacks, but because every learner deserves safety, belonging, and support to thrive as their whole, unique selves.

Federal Rollbacks and What They Mean in Minnesota

State law supersedes federal reinterpretations when state statutes go further in protecting rights. Minnesota courts have repeatedly affirmed this principle.

Here’s where the current federal threats to education equity stand—and what Minnesota law requires:

1. Elimination or De-Prioritization of Disparate Impact Enforcement

• Not binding law. This is an enforcement choice by the U.S. Department of Education (DOE), not a change to Title VI itself.
• What it means: DOE may stop investigating disparate impact complaints, but Title VI and case law (e.g. Lau v. Nichols) still prohibit discrimination.
• Expert view: Civil rights attorneys say schools remain liable if their policies harm students of color, even if DOE deprioritizes enforcement. Private lawsuits can still be filed.
• MN law: The Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA) explicitly prohibits discrimination in education. That state obligation stands regardless of federal enforcement.
  MHRA statute: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/363A.13

2. Broad Expansion of SFFA Logic Beyond College Admissions

• Not binding. DOE guidance letters trying to apply Students for Fair Admissions (the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard and UNC college admissions case) to K–12 programs do not have legal force. Courts have already blocked DOE’s 2025 Dear Colleague Letter for overreach.
• What it means: Schools should still run equity programs tied to disparities, but “quotas or rigid race-based eligibility are considered riskier.” (See more more below in How Can Schools Use Equity Language Without Risking Funding? for what legal experts say about framing your equity initiatives.)
• MN law: Statutes like Achievement & Integration (§ 124D.861) require districts to reduce racial and economic disparities. State law obligates schools to act, even if DOE discourages it.
  • Achievement & Integration Statute: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/124D.861

3. “Race Proxies” Under Scrutiny

• Not binding. Federal reinterpretations labeling things like zip code or ESL status as “proxies for race” are policy positions, not law.
• Legal risk: Courts have not ruled that such proxies are inherently unlawful. Civil rights experts warn this reinterpretation is legally weak.
• MN law: English Learner statutes (§ 124D.59–64) and the new Language Access Plan (§ 123B.32) specifically require services for multilingual learners and families. Those state mandates override vague federal discouragement.
  • EL statute: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/124d.59
  • Language Access: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/2024/cite/123B.32

4. Redefining “Sex” Under Title IX

• “Federally uncertain.” DOE’s reinterpretation limits “sex” to biological sex at birth, excluding gender identity. Multiple lawsuits are challenging this, and some courts have already blocked enforcement.
• Expert view: The NEA’s Office of General Counsel and LGBTQ+ advocacy groups stress schools are still bound by state nondiscrimination laws.
• MN law: MHRA explicitly protects gender identity in education. Even if federal protections narrow, Minnesota law still requires schools to protect trans and gender-diverse students.
  • MHRA statute: https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/363A.13

5. DEI Certification Demands Tied to Federal Funding

• Not binding. Courts struck down DOE’s certification requirement as unlawful under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). Districts are not required to sign vague certifications.
• MN response: MDE refused to sign, and AG Ellison affirmed Minnesota’s equity efforts are legal.
  • AG Ellison statement: https://www.ag.state.mn.us/Office/Communications/2025/04/25_DeptEducation_Certification.asp
  • MDE letter: https://education.mn.gov/mdeprod/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&Rendition=primary&RevisionSelectionMethod=latestReleased&dDocName=PROD086176

6. Rescission of 2015 English Learner Guidance

• Not binding. Guidance letters are non-binding interpretations of existing law. Removing the 2015 EL guidance does not repeal Title VI or the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA).
• What it means: DOE has deprioritized enforcement, but schools are still legally obligated to provide language assistance and access.
• Expert view: TESOL International and NILC stress the rescission “does not change civil rights law.”
  • EdWeek coverage: https://www.edweek.org/teaching-learning/trump-admin-quietly-rescinds-guidance-on-english-learners-rights/2025/08
  • K–12 Dive: https://www.k12dive.com/news/education-department-rescinds-ela-english-learner-guidance-2015-dear-colleague/758163
  • TESOL statement: https://www.tesol.org/news/tesol-statement-on-the-rescission-of-guidance-on-serving-multilingual-learners-of-english-in-us-public-schools

What Minnesota Officials Say 

Minnesota leaders have called the federal moves “vague, coercive, and possibly unlawful.” They affirm that Minnesota law supersedes federal threats and directives, and Minnesota educators must continue to uphold Minnesota law and PELSB standards to advance equity, inclusion, and belonging for every learner.

The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) refused to sign the federal DEI certification and stated: “There is nothing unlawful in the principles underlying programs that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.” MDE Response Letter to U.S. DOE

Attorney General Keith Ellison affirmed the legality of Minnesota’s DEI efforts under state and federal law. AG Ellison Statement on Certification

---

How Should Schools Respond to Federal Pressure or “DEI Certification” Requests?

What Minnesota officials and civil rights legal experts say about how schools should Push Back/Push Forward in response to federal threats to abandon Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion initiatives.

1. Do not sign vague federal “DEI Certifications”

The Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) and Attorney General Keith Ellison affirmed that “DEI Certifications” are not legal nor required, stating that Minnesota will continue to uphold its legal promise to advance education equity :

• MDE refused to sign the federal DEI certification and stated:
  “There is nothing unlawful in the principles underlying programs that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
  MDE Response Letter to U.S. DOE
• Attorney General Keith Ellison affirmed the legality of Minnesota’s DEI efforts under state and federal law.
  AG Ellison Statement on Certification
• What you should do instead:
  • Request clarification in writing.
  • Don’t sign anything that labels lawful equity work as “illegal” unless there’s an actual, legally binding federal rule requiring it — which there isn’t.
  • Document all communication to show good faith compliance.

2. Use Minnesota law as your foundation 

Emphasize equity initiatives are remedial, legally defensible, and tied to state mandates. Cite the following laws to justify equity efforts:

• MN Constitution, Art. XIII, § 1: Requires a “general and uniform” system of public schools (courts tie to adequacy/equity).
• Cruz-Guzman v. State (2023): Racial imbalances that substantially cause inadequate education can violate the Education Clause.
• Minnesota Human Rights Act: Bars discrimination in education by race, national origin, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, and other protected classes.
• Achievement & Integration Statute (Minn. Stat. § 124D.861): Districts must pursue racial/economic integration and reduce disparities.
• Staff Development Statute (Minn. Stat. § 122A.60): Requires training to meet the needs of diverse learners.
• English Learners Statute  (Minn. Stat. §§ 124D.59–.64): Identification, services, and progress monitoring are statutory duties.
• Language Access Plans (Minn. Stat. § 123B.32): Districts must adopt/implement language access plans (2025–26).

3. Frame equity initiatives as remedial and necessary.

Equity programs are legally defensible under civil rights law when they are designed to remedy documented disparities in access, opportunity, or outcomes.

• Example: Reducing racial disparities in suspension is remedial because it addresses a proven harm.
• Use simple, clear language:
  • “This initiative remedies disparities in student discipline by investing in restorative practices.”
  • “This program remedies gaps in advanced coursework participation by expanding access for underrepresented students.”
  • “This service remedies barriers faced by multilingual families by providing translation and interpretation required by law.”

4. Communicate your equity mission clearly and publicly

• Use strategic language: “This initiative fulfills our obligation under state law to close educational opportunity gaps and protect student rights.”
• Remind stakeholders that:
  • Minnesota has its own civil rights laws
  • The federal actions are being challenged in court
  • PELSB standards require educators to:
    • Remove barriers: Identify and eliminate systemic obstacles to student success.
    • Teach truthfully: Deliver accurate, inclusive curriculum that reflects diverse identities.
    • Create belonging: Build affirming classrooms that honor dignity and cultural identity.

4. Prepare for political pressure

• Train boards and teams on:
  • Federal reinterpretations vs. Minnesota law
  • How to spot overcompliance
  • Why state law matters
• Stay connected to:
  • MDE
  • PELSB
  • AG Ellison’s Office
  • Minnesota Department of Human Rights
  • Minnesota Education Equity Partnership

Learn more about what legal experts say schools should do to ensure their equity initiatives and programs are legally defensible and supported in the section below: How Can Schools Use Equity Language Without Risking Funding? 

Federal rollbacks to education access and equity aren’t simply technical legal shifts.

They’re a coordinated, deliberate attempt to shrink protections, redraw who “belongs” in public schools, and reinforce racial, gender, and cultural hierarchies in classrooms and communities across the country.

They’re about defining whose children, families, and communities are valued, worthy, and truly “American.”

These threats and rollbacks to safety, access, and equity in education do not hold up in federal court. And they do not hold up under civil rights law.

Push Back/Push Forward

State law supersedes federal reinterpretations when state statutes go further in protecting rights. Minnesota courts have repeatedly affirmed this principle.

Minnesota educators and school leaders are required by civil rights law, Minnesota law, and PELSB standards to uphold and protect the rights and dignity of every learner.

Is Equity Language Illegal?

What Recent Court Decisions Mean

Recent federal rhetoric and directives have created confusion and fear around equity in education. Many educators are now questioning whether it’s even legal to uphold their commitments to equity and ensure success for all learners.

The answer, affirmed by the courts, is clear:

No. Equity language and equity-focused strategies are not illegal.

In March of 2025, the US Department of Education even affirmed this, saying:

“Whether a policy or program violates Title VI does not depend on the use of specific terminology such as ‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ or ‘inclusion.’”

In short: Using equity language is “not automatically unlawful,” even under federal reinterpretation of the long-standing civil rights laws.

• Federal courts have recently upheld this. In late April, 2005, federal judges blocked DOE attempts to withhold K–12 funding from districts over Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion initiatives, ruling those threats an overreach of federal authority.
• Legal experts echo this. Under the current federal threats, legal experts caution against “rigid quotas or exclusionary preferences” (like reserving slots based solely on race). But equity strategies focused on removing barriers and expanding opportunity are defensible under civil rights law.

What This Means for Minnesota Schools:

• Equity language is not “illegal”:  Civil rights law and federal judges affirm “equity language” cannot be made illegal. What is illegal is if a program denies access or discriminates against protected groups under civil rights laws.
• What to avoid: For now, experts say “avoid using quotas or race-based preferences” in communications and reports about equity initiatives.
• What do do instead: Use language such as: removing barriers to success, reducing disparities, and expanding opportunities for every learner.
• These strategies remain lawful and defensible under civil rights law, even under federal threats.

Learn more below about how to ensure your equity strategies are legally defensible in the face of federal threats and rollbacks.

Federal Funding Threats Don’t Hold Up in Court

Courts have consistently reaffirmed that the federal government cannot redefine equity strategies as “illegal.”

Rollbacks that conflict with civil rights statutes are unenforceable.

Recent Court Rulings Blocking Federal Directives:

• An overreach of federal authority: In April 2025, federal judges blocked DOE attempts to withhold K–12 funds from districts with equity programs, ruling those threats an overreach of federal authority.
• Blocked “DEI certifications”: In August 2025, a federal judge permanently blocked the Department of Education’s anti-DEI mandates and guidance, ruling they exceeded legal authority and violated due process.
  • In AFT et al. v. U.S. Department of Education (Aug 2025), a federal judge struck down DOE’s rule requiring schools to certify they were not using DEI practices to keep funding.
    • The court found the guidance unconstitutionally vague and said it created a chilling effect on educators.
  • The court struck down the guidance as unlawful, meaning the DOE cannot enforce it as a condition for funding.

What This Means for Minnesota Schools & Students

Courts have made clear that the DOE cannot use vague threats or certifications to coerce schools into abandoning equity as a condition of funding.

This means:

• Educators are not legally required to stop using Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion or equity terms.
• Threats tied to vague language like “diversity” or “equity” have no binding authority.
• Courts have reinforced that using equity language itself is not illegal. What matters legally is whether a program discriminates or denies access to a program.

Learn more below about how to ensure your equity strategies and language are legally defensible under current federal threats. 

---

Strategies to Ensure Equity Work is Legally Defensible Amid Federal Threats

Federal rollbacks are designed to intimidate schools, even suggesting that using the words equity or inclusion could be unlawful or subject to scrutiny and funding cuts. Legal experts make clear this is not true.

What matters is how equity initiatives are designed, documented, and communicated in ways that comply with civil rights law.

Equity isn’t just legal in Minnesota—it’s required. State law obligates districts to reduce racial disparities, affirm student identities, provide language access, and create inclusive, supportive schools.

Minnesota educators should keep equity central, defend it with clear data and documentation, and avoid retreating under political threats designed to undermine the rights of students of color, Indigenous students, immigrant students, and LGBTQ+ students.

These strategies reflect recommendations from civil rights lawyers, education law scholars, and national equity organizations.

What legal experts say you should do now:

1. Anchor equity strategies in state state law and educator standards.

• Minnesota’s Achievement & Integration Statute, Human Rights Act, Safe & Supportive Schools Act, and PELSB Standards all require equity, inclusion, and protection of students and their educational rights.
• These provide a stronger legal foundation than shifting federal guidelines.

2. Frame equity strategies in terms of equitable outcomes

Communicate equity initiatives in terms of expanding opportunity, closing documented gaps, and protecting student rights rather than “preferences.”

• Programs that eliminate barriers or target underserved students, when tied to well-documented and tracked data, are legally defensible under civil rights law.
  • Gibson Dunn (2025) Legal experts advise schools to use language around expanding opportunity, closing documented disparities, and protecting student rights.
• Recent context: A federal court vacated DOE’s guidance that tried to ban all race-aware practices, finding it vague, overbroad, and procedurally unlawful.
  • Education Law Center (2025): “Programs that eliminate barriers or close opportunity gaps are consistent with civil rights law and remain lawful.” Read more (PDF).

3. Avoid rigid quotas or exclusive “race-based preferences.”

• Programs that reserve benefits based solely on race are vulnerable under Title VI.
• However, courts have criticized DOE’s “certification requirement” as vague and overreaching when it suggested that any Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion initiatives resembled their interpretation of quotas, upholding that equity strategies and equity language are and will remain legal.
  • Littler (2025): The court found DOE’s Dear Colleague Letter “vague, legally flawed, and subject to invalidation where programs resemble quotas or preferences.” Read more.

4. Use clear data to document remedial needs

• Clearly document inequities, disaggregate data, and connect policies to remedy those disparities.
  • (JD Supra) Courts uphold equity programs when they are remedial, evidence-based, transparent and tied to documented disparities.
  • Brookings (2025): Initiatives designed to address or remedy documented disparities are more defensible than those framed as preferences. Read more.
• Example: Reducing racial disparities in suspension is remedial because it addresses a proven harm.
  • Use simple, clear language to show this:
    • “This initiative remedies disparities in student discipline by investing in restorative practices.”
    • “This program remedies gaps in advanced coursework participation by expanding access for underrepresented students.”
    • “This service remedies barriers faced by multilingual families by providing translation and interpretation required by law.”

4. Keep equity strategies and language visible.

• The National Education Association’s Office of General Counsel affirms that educators have the right and duty to support equity, and that inclusion-focused strategies remain protected under law. Read more.
• Minnesota law further requires this through the Achievement & Integration Statute and PELSB standards.

4. Don’t retreat out of fear.

• Retreating from equity programs increases legal, reputational, and community trust risks. Abandoning equity strategies can invite lawsuits and erode credibility.
  • Leon Alcala (2025): “Federal courts have repeatedly blocked DOE’s overbroad DEI restrictions, signaling schools are not required to pre-comply.” Read more.

5. Don’t erase language around equity and belonging.

• Experts caution that striking “equity” or “belonging” from programs wholesale weakens claims of the program purpose, rationale, and necessary impact.
• Emphasis on access, equity, and inclusion remains compatible with civil rights law—even under federal threats and rhetoric that say otherwise.

7. Strengthen equity work beyond federal dollars.

• Even when unlawful threats are legally blocked by federal judges, funding channels can be manipulated to disrupt legal equity efforts. (e.g., requiring DEI disclaimers in applications).
• Experts recommend diversifying funding streams and documenting compliance under state law to reduce vulnerability.
  • Brookings (2025 litigation guide): Advises education leaders to “develop contingency plans for federal funding disruption” and to “prioritize state and local mechanisms to sustain equity work.” Read more.
  • DOJ has also begun labeling certain DEI practices “illegal,” showing how rollbacks and scrutiny may expand.

What this Means for Minnesota Educators

Minnesota educators can and must keep equity at the center of your mission, your language, and your strategies to advance student success.

Civil rights laws aren’t about words. They’re about the impact. What matters is whether your programs expand access, affirm and honor identities, protect student rights, and remove systemic and structural barriers to student education access and success.

When equity is framed as a strategy for advancing inclusion, access, and civil rights—as it should be—it remains legally defensible, even in the face of federal threats.

Your Legal Obligations for Upholding  & Advancing Racial Equity Strategies

Minnesota law requires schools to take proactive steps to close opportunity gaps, address structural inequities, and create inclusive, equitabale learning environments where every learner is honored and supported to thrive.

These obligations reflect the state’s legal, professional, and policy commitment to racial equity.

They remain legally binding, regardless of any federal rollbacks or political threats to equity efforts.

Here’s what Minnesota law still requires districts and schools to uphold: 

1. Equitable Access to Safe, Supportive Learning Environments

• The Minnesota Constitution Article XIII, Section 1
  Requires the legislature to establish a “general and uniform system of public schools,” interpreted as guaranteeing equitable access to education for all Minnesota students, regardless of immigration status.
• The Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. § 363A.13)
  Prohibits discrimination “in any manner in the full utilization of or benefit from any educational institution” based on race, national origin, and other protected classes.
• The Safe and Supportive Schools Act requires schools to create safe and supportive learning environments, including anti-bullying protections and affirming policies for students targeted by harassment, especially marginalized students such as students of color, immigrant, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ students.

2. Racial Equity in Student Outcomes and District Planning

• The Achievement and Integration statute (Minn. Stat. § 124D.861)
  Requires districts to develop and implement clear policies and strategies to close academic achievement and opportunity gaps.
• World’s Best Workforce (Minn. Stat. § 120B.11)
  Requires all districts to develop long-term strategic plans that advance equity and student success, with measurable goals to close opportunity gaps and improve outcomes. Plans must address academic achievement, access to effective teachers, and student well-being, using data disaggregated by race, language, income, and other factors

3. Culturally Responsive Teaching & Curriculum

• PELSB Standards of Effective Practice (Minn. R. 8710.2000)
  Requires all teacher preparation programs and licensed educators to demonstrate cultural competence, knowledge of systemic inequities, and skills to teach diverse learners effectively.
• Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subdivisions 5 & 8) requires districts and charter schools to include culturally responsive teaching practices in their teacher development and evaluation models. By the 2025–26 school year, all evaluation rubrics must include standards for culturally responsive methodologies.

Minnesota law requires schools to sustain equity practices and keep equity language visible.

Courts and legal experts affirm that programs and strategies framed around expanding access, protecting student rights, and removing barriers are necessary and legally defensible, even under federal threats.

Districts that erase equity language out of fear risk falling out of compliance, weakening student protections, and reinforcing the very exclusions equity initiatives are designed to eliminate.

(Read more below about how to ensure your equity strategies are legally defensible.)

Push Back/Push Forward

Federal rollbacks are creating fear and confusion, causing schools and educators to retreat from initiatives intended to honor the rights, needs, and aspirations of students of color, Indigenous students, and multilingual learners.

Yet recent court rulings and Minnesota law make clear that equity strategies are both legal and necessary for ensuring the success of every learner. 

What educators can do right now to Push Back/Push Forward with equity:

1. Stand firm on legal protections

• Minnesota leaders, including the Attorney General and MDE, have affirmed schools are not required to pre-comply with unlawful directives.
• Complying with federal threats or rollbacks undermines student rights and puts districts out of compliance with state law.

2. Stay in compliance with Minnesota law.

• State statutes and PELSB standards require schools to protect student civil rights, close opportunity gaps, and sustain racial equity strategies, regardless of federal rollbacks.

3. Frame your equity strategies around access and opportunity.

• Follow legal expert guidance: Avoid using rigid quotas or racial preferences in your equity strategies and programs, but continue to emphasize intended outcomes and impacts, like removing barriers, closing disparities, and protecting student rights.
• These goals and programs remain legally defensible under civil rights law.

4. Communicate equity strategies clearly with staff, families, and the public.

• Ensure school communities understand that equity is not just a value—it is required by Minnesota law and supported by the courts.
• Make clear that equity strategies will not disappear because of federal overreach.
• Reaffirm in public communications that equity strategies are designed to remove barriers, close disparities, uphold student rights, and ensure every learner’s access to an equitable education.

5. Communicate your responsibilities as an educator.

• Affirm to staff and school communities that equity strategies are critical for every learner’s success and required under Minnesota law and PESLB standards.
• Minnesota law and PELSB standards include every educator’s responsibility to:
  • Teach accurate, inclusive curriculum that reflects student identities and histories.
  • Affirm student dignity and belonging through culturally responsive practices.
  • Address racial disparities in achievement, access, and discipline.
  • Prevent discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, gender identity, or immigration status.

6. Prepare for funding disruption.

• Federal threats may still create financial strain even if doing so is unlawful.
• Diversify supports through state programs, local initiatives, and community partnerships to keep equity work moving forward and ensure school and student success.

Push Back / Push Forward Together.

Minnesota leaders, courts, and civil rights organizations have affirmed: Equity strategies are protected and expected.

Schools must stand together with students and communities to defend Minnesota’s values, reject federal overreach, and secure a fully funded, equitable public education system where every learner belongs and thrives.

Legal analysis, briefs, and thought leadership around federal threats to equity and funding, how to respond, and what to expect next.

---

Ongoing legal analysis and updates:

Brookings: The Status of Litigation Against the K–12 Education Agenda: A Guide for Education Leaders
A review of ongoing lawsuits and legal developments challenging federal policies affecting K‑12, showing where courts have pushed back on overbroad or procedurally defective directives, and offering guidance for education leaders on how to navigate and respond to these threats.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-status-of-litigation-against-the-trump-administrations-k-12-education-agenda-a-guide-for-education-leaders/

Analysis of anti-DEI guidance and civil rights law:

Higher Ed Dive – Education Department’s anti-DEI guidance struck down in federal court (Aug 2025)
A federal judge vacated the DOE’s February 14 guidance that threatened to penalize colleges and K‑12 schools for DEI practices, finding the guidance violated due process and free speech rights and was issued without following required administrative procedures.
https://www.highereddive.com/news/education-departments-anti-dei-guidance-struck-down-in-federal-court/757831

Littler – Federal Court Invalidates DOE’s Title VI Guidance: Key Implications for DEI Compliance
The U.S. District Court in Maryland invalidated both the Dear Colleague Letter and the associated certification requirement under Title VI, holding that they were legally flawed due to vagueness, improper rulemaking, and due process concerns; institutions may now rely on this decision to resist vaguely defined DEI restrictions.
https://www.littler.com/news-analysis/asap/federal-court-invalidates-does-title-vi-guidance-key-implications-dei-compliance

Inside Higher Ed: DOE Clarifies DEI Restrictions: What Does the New Guidance Really Mean?
The DOE issued a FAQ to further explain its controversial Dear Colleague Letter; legal scholars see it as somewhat less aggressive but caution that many of its threats and ambiguities around DEI remain unresolved.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/government/politics-elections/2025/03/04/what-does-eds-new-dei-guidance-really-mean

Leon Alcala – Legal Brief: Federal Courts Block DOE’s DEI Guidance in Three Cases
Multiple federal courts have blocked the DOE’s attempts to enforce guidance curbing DEI programs, signaling that several legal challenges agree the agency overstepped its authority.
https://www.leonalcala.com/post/legal-brief-federal-courts-block-u-s-department-of-educations-dei-guidance-in-three-cases

Education Law Center: The Truth About Executive Orders and Lawful DEI (April 2025 PDF)
This legal brief examines recent executive orders and federal directives to argue that many DEI initiatives remain lawful under existing civil rights law, and that legal threats often misinterpret or overstate the risk to such efforts.
https://www.elc-pa.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/2025-04-23-The-Truth-About-EOs-and-Lawful-DEI-final.pdf

Understanding & Communicating the Impact of Federal Threats to Education Equity Infrastructure

This section is a guide for school and district leaders to understand and clearly communicate the impact of federal rollbacks on education equity infrastructure. Use it to name the harms, counter harmful narratives, and affirm why equity strategies and supports remain both legally required and essential for every learner’s success.

---

Federal rollbacks to equity infrastructure are not abstract policy shifts. They are deliberate, coordinated attacks on inclusion and belonging that undermine the rights and futures of students of color, Indigenous students, immigrant learners, and LGBTQ+ youth.

Here’s what happens when equity infrastructure is removed:

1. Student supports are stripped away

• Federal directives label racial equity strategies as “unlawful,” pressuring districts to delay or eliminate programs designed to close racial disparities.
• Impact: Students lose critical access to culturally responsive supports, deepening inequities and undermining Minnesota’s constitutional promise of an adequate education for every learner.

2. Race-based goals disappear from plans

• Some districts are scrubbing mandated race equity goals from strategic plans to appear “neutral” under federal scrutiny.
• Impact: When goals disappear, accountability disappears. Inequities go unaddressed, and students of color and immigrant learners receive the message that their success is not a priority.

3. Equity staff are cut or reclassified

• To avoid the weaponization of DEI as “illegal,” districts are cutting or reassigning staff who support equity and culturally responsive practices.
• Impact: Schools lose the leadership and capacity needed to meet state equity requirements and create safe, affirming environments.

4. Safe environments are eroded

• Without equity staff and programs, students of color, Indigenous, immigrant, and LGBTQ+ learners lose access to trusted mentors, relevant programs, and affirming spaces.
• Impact: Students are less safe, less supported, and face higher barriers to learning and belonging.

What This Means for Minnesota Schools

Removing equity infrastructure not only harms students — it puts districts out of compliance with Minnesota law and PELSB standards. Without equitable supports and strategies, schools cannot close opportunity gaps or meet their legal and ethical responsibilities.

This weakens public education, increases legal risk, and erodes community trust.

School leaders must push back against these rollbacks and push forward with equity-centered leadership to safeguard Minnesota’s public education systems and shared future.

What the Courts Say About Equity Strategies

Courts have consistently reaffirmed that the federal government cannot redefine equity strategies as “illegal.”

Rollbacks that conflict with civil rights statutes are unenforceable.

Recent Court Rulings Blocking Federal Rollbacks:

• Maryland (August 2025): A federal judge permanently blocked the Department of Education’s anti-DEI mandates and guidance, ruling they exceeded legal authority and violated due process
  Higher Ed Dive Coverage
• New Hampshire & Washington, D.C. (April 2025): Federal courts issued injunctions halting threats to penalize schools for implementing equity practices, finding them likely unlawful.
  Washington Post Coverage
• Ongoing litigation: The ACLU and civil rights partners continue to litigate rollbacks that target DEI, equity strategies, and culturally responsive practices.

---

What This Means for Minnesota Schools & Students:

Minnesota’s legal commitment to equity infrastructure, strategies, and practices cannot be erased by executive order. Courts have affirmed that these directives conflict with civil rights law and are unenforceable.

 

---

Your Legal Obligations for Upholding  & Advancing Racial Equity Initiatives

Minnesota law requires schools to take proactive steps to close opportunity gaps, address structural inequities, and create inclusive, equitable learning environments where every learner is honored and supported to thrive.

These obligations reflect the state’s legal, professional, and policy commitment to racial equity.

They remain legally binding, regardless of any federal rollbacks or political threats to equity efforts.

Here’s what Minnesota law still requires districts and schools to uphold: 

1. Equitable Access to Safe, Supportive Learning Environments

• The Minnesota Constitution Article XIII, Section 1
  Requires the legislature to establish a “general and uniform system of public schools,” interpreted as guaranteeing equitable access to education for all Minnesota students, regardless of immigration status.
• The Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. § 363A.13)
  Prohibits discrimination “in any manner in the full utilization of or benefit from any educational institution” based on race, national origin, and other protected classes.
• The Safe and Supportive Schools Act requires schools to create safe and supportive learning environments, including anti-bullying protections and affirming policies for students targeted by harassment, especially marginalized students such as students of color, immigrant, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ students.

2. Racial Equity in Student Outcomes and District Planning

• The Achievement and Integration statute (Minn. Stat. § 124D.861)
  Requires districts to develop and implement clear policies and strategies to close academic achievement and opportunity gaps.
• World’s Best Workforce (Minn. Stat. § 120B.11)
  Requires all districts to develop long-term strategic plans that advance equity and student success, with measurable goals to close opportunity gaps and improve outcomes. Plans must address academic achievement, access to effective teachers, and student well-being, using data disaggregated by race, language, income, and other factors

3. Culturally Responsive Teaching & Curriculum

• PELSB Standards of Effective Practice (Minn. R. 8710.2000)
  Requires all teacher preparation programs and licensed educators to demonstrate cultural competence, knowledge of systemic inequities, and skills to teach diverse learners effectively.
• Minnesota law (Minn. Stat. § 122A.40, subdivisions 5 & 8) requires districts and charter schools to include culturally responsive teaching practices in their teacher development and evaluation models. By the 2025–26 school year, all evaluation rubrics must include standards for culturally responsive methodologies.

Minnesota law and PESLB standards requires educators, schools, and districts to keep equity at the center of their mission, language, and strategies to advance every learner’s success.

Equity isn’t just legal—it’s required in Minnesota. And in the face of federal threats, keeping equity visible and central is both a compliance obligation and an ethical commitment to every learner’s dignity and success.

Districts that retreat from equity initiatives risk falling out of compliance, widening opportunity gaps, and violating the very legal protections meant to guarantee a free and equitable education for every learner.

Push Back/Push Forward

Despite federal attempts to sow confusion and pressure schools into retreat, Minnesota’s obligations remain clear: Racial equity is both a legal requirement and a moral responsibility.

What educators can do right now to Push Back/Push Forward with equity:

1. Stand firm on legal obligations and protections

• Federal courts and Minnesota leaders, including the Attorney General and MDE, have affirmed schools are not required to pre-comply with unlawful federal directives to undermine equity intitives.
• Complying with federal threats or rollbacks undermines student rights and puts districts out of compliance with state law.
• Minnesota law, PELSB standards, and Title VI and Title IX civil rights protections still remain fully enforceable.

2. Claim and communicate your educator rights & responsibilities to every learner

• Minnesota law and PELSB standards require you to uphold student civil rights, teach truthfully, and create inclusive learning environments.
  This includes:

• Teaching accurate, inclusive curriculum that reflects student identities and histories.
• Affirming student dignity and belonging through culturally responsive practices.
• Addressing racial disparities in achievement, access, and discipline.
• Preventing discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, gender identity, or immigration status.

3. Protect equity capacity & infrastructure

• Minnesota law requires schools to maintain the staff and resource capacity to advance racial equity and protect student rights.
• Safeguard the people, programs, and systems that make equity possible, including staff positions, student supports, accountability systems, and culturally responsive educator training and supports.

4. Keep race equity goals central & visible

• Minnesota law requires schools to address and close opportunity gaps for students of color, Indigenous students, and immigrant students.
• State laws and PELSB standards require you to sustain racially equitable strategies that affirm students’ cultural, racial, and linguistic identities.
• Communicate clearly with staff and communities that equity is both a district requirement and critical for stronger schools, greater trust, and student success.

5. Frame equity strategies around access and outcomes.

• Legal advisors recommend communicating equity initiatives in terms of expanding opportunity, closing documented gaps, and protecting student rights rather than using “quotas” or language around  “race-based targets or preferences.”
• Programs that eliminate barriers or target underserved students, when tied to well-documented and tracked data, are legally defensible under civil rights law.

6. Communicate your equity mission to students, staff, and school communities.

• Stand with students and diverse communities by affirming your school’s legal and moral commitment to equity.
• Make clear that inclusive, student-centered schools are both a legal mandate and the foundation for student dignity, belonging, and success.

Push Back / Push Forward Together.

Minnesota’s leaders, courts, and civil rights organizations have affirmed: Equity strategies are protected, expected, and supported. Schools must stand together with students and communities to defend Minnesota’s values, reject federal overreach, and secure a fully funded, equitable public education system where every learner belongs and thrives.

Legal analysis, commentary, and thought leadership on the impact of federal rollbacks to Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion and how to keep racial equity and student success central to your mission.

---

The Regulatory Review: The War on DEI
Expert analysis of how federal rollbacks are dismantling diversity, equity, and inclusion infrastructure nationwide.
Read more at the Regulatory Review.

Cultural & DEI Centers Closing Across States, Though Students Call Them Lifelines
Universities in at least six states have shuttered multicultural centers under anti-equity laws, impacting student higher-ed access and success
Read more in Washington Post

Chronicle of Higher Education: Tracking Higher Ed’s Dismantling of DEI
A detailed look at how colleges are eliminating DEI offices and staff under mounting political pressure, and what it means for education equity and student outcomes.
Read Chronicle story

K–12 Dive: Grant Cuts Threaten Diverse Teacher Pipelines
UCLA research finds that cutting DEI-related grants undermines teacher diversity and harms schools and student outcomes.
Read K-12 Dive

Interfaith Alliance – EO 14190’s Chilling Impact on Racial Justice Education
Insightful analysis explaining how Executive Order 14190 suppresses inclusive teaching, marginalizes racial justice pedagogy, and threatens educators’ ability to support LGBTQ+ students.
https://interfaithalliance.org/post/tracking-trumps-executive-orders-undermining-safe-learning-environments

Reuters: Teachers Report Self-Censorship Under Trump DEI Orders
Journalistic coverage highlighting how new federal directives have created a climate of fear in classrooms, leading educators to quietly avoid critical topics like race and gender.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-school-year-ends-under-shadow-trump-dei-orders-2025-06-16

Williams Institute (UCLA): Executive Order 14190’s Impact on Transgender Students
Research brief summarizing how the order jeopardizes students’ recognition, safe facility access, and use of pronouns—linking policy to adverse educational and mental health impacts.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/dei-schools-eo-impact/

19 States, Including Minnesota, Sue Over DEI Funding Threats
Multi-state lawsuit challenges federal directives tying education funding to elimination of DEI programs.
Read more at Politico

Understanding & Communicating the Impact of Federal Rollbacks on Civil Rights Protections

This section is a guide for school and district leaders to understand and clearly communicate the impact of federal rollbacks on civil rights protections. Use it to name the harms, counter harmful narratives, and affirm for students, families, and communities that civil rights protections remain both a legal requirement and a moral imperative.

---

Civil rights protections are among the strongest tools schools have to ensure students are treated with dignity, fairness, and respect. They hold districts accountable for addressing racial disparities, protecting LGBTQ+ students, and creating environments where every learner can thrive as their full self.

Federal rollbacks are striking at the heart of these protections—weakening enforcement, misusing Title VI to cast equity as “discrimination,” and intimidating educators into silence.

These are not abstract policy changes.

They are deliberate efforts to strip students of color, Indigenous students, immigrant students, and LGBTQ+ students of their identities and rights, and to pressure schools to abandon their legal and moral commitments to equity and inclusion.

Here’s how civil rights rollbacks impact schools and students:

1. Title VI is weaponized against equity.

• Federal officials are twisting Title VI to frame racial equity programs as “discrimination.” Districts are halting equity audits, affinity groups, and culturally specific supports out of fear they will be labeled “unlawful.”
• Impact: Protections are flipped against the very students they were meant to serve. Students of color, Indigenous students, and multilingual learners lose access to supports, are made less visible, and are left more vulnerable to targeted discrimination and harm.

2. Discipline equity safeguards are erased.

• Oversight on racially disproportionate discipline has been removed, allowing exclusionary practices to go unchecked.
• Impact: Students of color face harsher punishment with fewer safeguards. Proven strategies like restorative practices and anti-bias training are sidelined, fueling the school-to-prison pipeline and widening opportunity gaps.

3. Civil rights accountability systems are dismantled.

• By weakening the Office for Civil Rights and stripping enforcement tools, federal leaders make it easier for schools to ignore discrimination.
• Impact: Without data tracking, investigations, or oversight, violations go unaddressed. Students lose pathways to justice, and schools face no consequences for inaction.

4. Federal threats silence educators and erase identity.

• Directives naming equity, gender identity, and systemic racism as “radical indoctrination” create a chilling effect. Educators are retreating from inclusive teaching out of fear of retribution.
• Impact: Students are denied accurate histories, affirming curriculum, and representation in learning. The message is clear: their cultural, racial, linguistic, and gender identities are too “dangerous” to acknowledge.

5. Civil rights enforcement is weakened, leaving students exposed.

• With federal oversight of civil rights eroding, schools lose one of their most important accountability structures mechanisms for ensuring safety and equity for every learner.
• Impact: Districts feel less pressure to intervene in cases of discrimination, harassment, or exclusion. Students of color, LGBTQ+ students, and immigrant learners face heightened risks of bias, bullying, and isolation without meaningful recourse.

What This Means for Minnesota Schools

When civil rights protections are dismantled, students are less safe, less supported, and less able to thrive. For Minnesota schools, this harms students, increases legal risk, and erodes community trust.

Minnesota law and PELSB standards still require educators to uphold student rights and eliminate systemic barriers.

Districts that retreat from equity risk falling out of compliance, widening opportunity gaps, and violating the very protections meant to guarantee a free, adequate, and equitable education.

School leaders must stand firm: Push back against unlawful rollbacks and push forward with civil rights-centered leadership to safeguard Minnesota’s students, schools, and shared future.

What the Courts Say About Federal Rights Rollbacks

Federal courts have reaffirmed that civil rights statutes — including Title VI and Title IX — continue to protect students from discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, and gender identity.

Attempts to reinterpret these laws to punish equity strategies or inclusive practices have been found unlawful.

Recent Court Rulings Blocking Federal Rollbacks to Civil Rights:

• Maryland (August 2025): A federal judge struck down Department of Education guidance that sought to redefine equity strategies as violations of Title VI, ruling it unconstitutional and procedurally invalid.
  Higher Ed Dive coverage
• Virginia (August 2025): Fairfax and Arlington school districts filed suit against federal threats to strip funding from schools with transgender-inclusive policies, arguing the directives violate Title IX and state-level protections. Case pending, injunction requested.
  Politico analysis
• Ongoing litigation: ACLU and partners continue to challenge federal orders that erode civil rights enforcement, including cases against book bans, transgender exclusion, and weakened discipline protections.

What This Means for Minnesota Schools & Students: 

Civil rights protections cannot be undone by executive order.

Title VI and Title IX remain firmly in place, and courts have blocked federal attempts to misuse these laws to punish schools.

What’s more, Minnesota laws reinforce and advance civil rights protections for every learner.

Schools are still legally obligated to protect students from discrimination and advance equity in education.

Your Legal Obligations Under Civil Rights Law

Districts remain legally obligated—under both Minnesota and federal law—to uphold every learner’s rights and provide equitable access to education and opportunity for every learner.

These protections are not optional and remain in full force, regardless of political rhetoric or federal rollbacks in guidance.

What Federal Civil Rights Law Still Requires

• Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964
  Prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in any school receiving federal funds — including obligations around language access and equal program access.
• Equal Educational Opportunities Act of 1974 (EEOA)
  Requires districts to take “appropriate action” to address language barriers that prevent English Learners from participating equally in education.
• Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973
  Protects students with disabilities and requires equitable accommodations to ensure access to instruction and services.

What Minnesota Law Upholds and Requires

• The Minnesota Constitution Article XIII, Section 1: Requires the legislature to establish a “general and uniform system of public schools,” interpreted as guaranteeing equitable access to education for all Minnesota students, regardless of immigration status.
• The Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. § 363A.13) prohibits discrimination “in any manner in the full utilization of or benefit from any educational institution” based on race, national origin, and other protected classes.
• The Achievement and Integration statute (Minn. Stat. § 124D.861) requires districts to develop and implement clear policies and strategies to close academic achievement and opportunity gaps.
• The Safe and Supportive Schools Act requires schools to create safe and supportive learning environments, including anti-bullying protections and affirming policies for students who are often targeted due to race, immigration status, language, gender identity, or other marginalized identities.

Title VI and Title IX protections remain in force, even as federal leaders try to narrow their scope. Minnesota schools must continue protecting students from discrimination, addressing racial disparities, and upholding inclusive practices.

Minnesota law and PESLB standards reinforce these obligations to every learner’s rights, safety, and dignity.

Failure to uphold and ensure these rights harms students and school communities leaves schools vulnerable to lawsuits and loss of community trust.

Push Back/Push Forward

Under Minnesota law, districts must address racial disparities, uphold civil rights protections, and create inclusive environments where every learner is safe, affirmed, and able to thrive.

What schools can do right now to Push Back/Push Forward with equity:

1. Stand firm on civil rights enforcement

• Title VI and Title IX remain in full effect, prohibiting discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, and gender identity.
• Minnesota’s Safe and Supportive Schools Act (121A.031) requires affirming, anti-bullying school environments.

2. Address racial discipline disparities

• Minnesota law requires districts to monitor and address racial disparities in discipline, even without federal guidance or oversight.
• Advance and support educator anti-bias training, culturally validating supports and resources, and restorative practices to address exclusionary discipline and support student school engagement and success.

3. Protect inclusive teaching

• Minnesota’s teacher licensure standards require educators to teach truthfully about race, history, and identity.
• Self-censorship risks violating both student rights and state professional standards.

4. Defend and support LGBTQ+ students

• Title IX, the Minnesota Human Rights Act, and the Safe and Supportive Schools Act guarantee protections for LGBTQ+ learners.
• Maintain policies affirming gender identity, pronouns, and safe access to facilities.

5. Affirm immigrant and multilingual learners

• Minnesota’s English Learner statutes (§§ 124D.59–64) and Language Access law (§ 123B.32) require schools to provide language services and family access.
• Ensure immigrant and multilingual students and their families are supported as full members of the school community—addressing the fear and harms of current political rhetoric and threats of surveillance and deportation.

6. Empower and support educators and staff

• Reaffirm that equity work is both legal and required in Minnesota. Threats of “funding loss” or “equity liability” have no basis in law.
• Share educator rights, PELSB standards, and Minnesota legal protections clearly and consistently with staff.

6. Counter harmful narratives

• Reaffirm that equity is not “illegal.” It is a human value and a human right. Protecting student civil rights—in curriculum, discipline, and school climate—is both a legal mandate and a Minnesota value.

Push Back / Push Forward—Together

Minnesota leaders, civil rights organizations, and the courts have affirmed: Civil rights enforcement remains protected and required.

When schools and communities move forward in solidarity to uphold the dignity and belonging of every learner, they do more than comply with the law — they strengthen student success, build public trust, and advance Minnesota’s vision of a more just, equitable future.

Legal analysis, briefs, and thought leadership on the impact of federal threats to equity initiatives and how school leaders can respond.

 

---

Interfaith Alliance – EO 14190’s Chilling Impact on Racial Justice Education
Insightful analysis explaining how Executive Order 14190 suppresses inclusive teaching, marginalizes racial justice pedagogy, and threatens educators’ ability to support LGBTQ+ students.
https://interfaithalliance.org/post/tracking-trumps-executive-orders-undermining-safe-learning-environments

Reuters: Teachers Report Self-Censorship Under Trump DEI Orders
Journalistic coverage highlighting how new federal directives have created a climate of fear in classrooms, leading educators to quietly avoid critical topics like race and gender.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-school-year-ends-under-shadow-trump-dei-orders-2025-06-16

Williams Institute (UCLA): Executive Order 14190’s Impact on Transgender Students
Research brief summarizing how the order jeopardizes students’ recognition, safe facility access, and use of pronouns—linking policy to adverse educational and mental health impacts.
https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/publications/dei-schools-eo-impact/

Rethinking Schools: The Chilling Effects of “CRT Bans”
Educator-focused commentary describing how bans not only block specific concepts but also suppress broader culturally responsive instruction, anti-racism, and social-emotional learning.
https://rethinkingschools.org/articles/the-chilling-effects-of-so-called-critical-race-theory-bans/

Brookings: Why Are States Banning Critical Race Theory?
A sociological exploration of the rise of anti-CRT laws, their misrepresentation of academic frameworks, and their harmful implications for teaching America’s racial history.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-are-states-banning-critical-race-theory

Understanding & Communicating the Impact of Federal Threats on Immigrant Learners

This section is a guide for school and district leaders to understand and clearly communicate the impact of federal rollbacks on immigrant learners. Use it to name the harms, counter harmful narratives, and affirm that schools remain legally and morally obligated to provide safe, affirming education spaces for every learner, regardless of immigration status.

---

Civil rights and Minnesota law affirm that schools must be places of safety and belonging — where every student has the resources and supportive environments they need to learn, thrive, and contribute to their communities.

Federal rollbacks are denying immigrant learners those rights by embedding fear, surveillance, and exclusion into public education. These policies are part of a deliberate strategy to create barriers, redefine school access as conditional, and undermine the dignity, safety, and opportunity of immigrant students and families.

Here’s how that impacts the rights of immigrant learners:

1. Families are driven out of schools by fear

• With “safe zone” protections revoked, immigrant families fear deportation and surveillance. Many are withdrawing from schools, leading to declining enrollment, disrupted learning, and fractured community ties.
• Impact: Chronic absenteeism rises. Family-school partnerships break down. Students’ learning is disrupted, and districts lose the trust and community relationships they need to serve all families equitably.

2. Students lose privacy and safety rights

• Expanded ICE access to student records pressures districts to share sensitive data — violating FERPA and Minnesota privacy protections.
• Impact: When schools become sites of surveillance, immigrant families no longer see them as safe places for learning. This undermines trust and compromises the very purpose of public education in Minnesota.

3. Supports for immigrant and multilingual learners are cut

• Federal policies tying funding to immigration enforcement have led some districts to reduce or eliminate language access, newcomer supports, and immigrant-focused services.
• Impact: Students lose access to interpretation, counseling, and culturally relevant resources that support academic success. Equity gaps widen, and schools fall short of Minnesota’s legal duty to serve English Learners and immigrant communities.

4. Safe, supportive school climates are fractured

• Surveillance, anti-immigrant rhetoric, and cuts to supports send a clear message: immigrant students are not welcome.
• Impact: Students experience fear, isolation, and exclusion. Mental health, attendance, and academic achievement decline, along with peer connection, school climate, and community trust.

What This Means for Minnesota Schools

When immigrant rights are undermined, schools lose more than enrollment—they lose trust, safety, and the ability to serve all learners equitably. For Minnesota, this not only harms students but also places districts at legal risk.

Minnesota law and PELSB standards require schools to serve all students, regardless of immigration status.

When districts retreat under federal pressure, they jeopardize compliance, widen opportunity gaps, and weaken public education.

School leaders must stand firm: Protect immigrant learners, safeguard privacy, and uphold Minnesota’s commitment to inclusive, equitable education for every student.

Learn more in our Creating Safe & Supportive Schools for Immigrant and English Learners Toolkit.

What’s Already Affirmed in Law:

• The Supreme Court’s decision in Plyler v. Doe (1982) guarantees the right to a free public education for all children, regardless of immigration status.
• FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) prohibits schools from disclosing student information — including immigration status — without consent, protecting students from unlawful surveillance.
• Minnesota’s Constitution guarantees access to a “general and uniform system of public schools” for every child, regardless of immigration status.

Recent Court Rulings Blocking Rollbacks to Immigrant Student Rights:

• California (2025): A federal district court blocked provisions requiring schools to share student data with ICE, finding them in violation of FERPA.
• Illinois (2024): A state court ruled that districts could not deny enrollment to undocumented students based on federal immigration directives, reaffirming Plyler v. Doe.
• Ongoing litigation: Civil rights and immigrant justice organizations continue to challenge federal orders that tie school funding to immigration enforcement, citing constitutional and civil rights violations.

---

What This Means for Minnesota Schools & Students:

Even under federal pressure, Minnesota schools cannot lawfully deny immigrant or undocumented students access to safe, supportive learning opportunities.

Schools are obligated to protect student privacy, reject unlawful data-sharing requests, and provide safe, supportive spaces where immigrant students can learn, contribute, and thrive.

Federal attempts to coerce districts into compliance with immigration policy are unlawful, unenforceable, and directly at odds with students’ civil rights and Minnesota law.

Your Legal Obligations for Honoring the Rights and Dignity of Immigrant Learners

Districts are legally obligated to provide immigrant and undocumented learners with equal access to education, ensure non-discrimination, and uphold student safety and belonging.

These protections remain fully in effect, even as federal directives attempt to erode them.

Here’s what Minnesota law protects and requires:

• The Minnesota Constitution Article XIII, Section 1: Requires the legislature to establish a “general and uniform system of public schools,” interpreted as guaranteeing equitable access to education for all Minnesota students, regardless of immigration status.
• The Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. § 363A.13) prohibits discrimination “in any manner in the full utilization of or benefit from any educational institution” based on race, national origin, and other protected classes.
• The Achievement and Integration statute (Minn. Stat. § 124D.861) requires districts to develop and implement clear policies and strategies to close academic achievement and opportunity gaps.
• The Safe and Supportive Schools Act requires schools to create safe and supportive learning environments, including anti-bullying protections and affirming policies for students who are often targeted due to race, immigration status, language, gender identity, or other marginalized identities.
• See more in MnEEP’s Safe & Supportive Schools Toolkit.

Federal threats of immigration enforcement and surveillance do not change Minnesota’s legal obligations to every learner.

Schools must remain safe zones by protecting student privacy, maintaining supports for immigrant and multilingual learners, and ensuring all families can engage in their education community without fear.

Upholding these rights is required under state and civil rights law, and abandoning them deepens inequities and fractures community trust.

Learn more about how to support immigrant learners amid federal threats in MnEEP’s toolkit: Creating Safe & Supportive Schools for Immigrant & Undocumented Learners. 

Push Back/Push Forward

All Minnesota schools should be places of safety and belonging, where every student, regardless of immigration status, has the opportunity to learn, thrive, and contribute. These moral and legal obligations are upheld in federal law  and Minnesota statutes.

What educators can do right now to Push Back/Push Forward with equity:

1. Know your legal rights and responsibilities.

• Minnesota law and Plyler v. Doe guarantee every child’s right to a public education, regardless of immigration status.
• Districts must provide equal access to safe, supportive learning environments — this obligation does not change under federal rollbacks.

2. Protect student safety and privacy.

• The FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) FERPA in Minnesota state law prohibits the release of student information, including immigration-related data, without proper legal authorization.
• ICE or law enforcement must have a judicial warrant signed by a judge to access school grounds or obtain student information.

3. Affirm schools as safe zones.

• Make clear in policy and practice that immigration enforcement has no place in schools.
• Train staff on how to respond to ICE or law enforcement actions or requests.

4. Sustain supports for immigrant students.

• Minnesota’s Human Rights Act and Achievement and Integration Statute require schools to prevent discrimination, address disparities, and provide supports for multilingual learners.
• Cutting access and supports is unlawful and undermines student rights and success.

5. Engage immigrant families with trust and support.

• Provide translated communication about rights, resources, and school commitments to safety.
• Partner with community organizations to rebuild trust and relationships with community.

6. Track and address absenteeism.

• Monitor rising absenteeism among immigrant students and intervene with supportive outreach—not punitive measures.

7. Counter harmful narratives

• Be proactive in assuring immigrant families that their children have the right to attend school without fear.
• Clear, multilingual communication about privacy protections and rights for immigrant, multilingual, and undocumented learners is critical for building strong, engaged school communities.

Explore more strategies and tools for upholding immigrant and undocumented student rights, dignity, and safety in MnEEP’s Creating Safe & Supportive Schools for Immigrant & English Learners Toolkit. 

Push Back/Push Forward Together.

State leaders, civil rights organizations, and courts have affirmed that Minnesota protects immigrant students’ rights. By standing together, schools comply with the law, strengthen public trust, and model the values of equity, safety, and belonging critical to the success of Minnesota’s public education system.

Legal analysis, commentary, and thought leadership on the impact of immigration enforcement and surveillance in schools and how school leaders can Push Back/Push Forward.

---

American Immigration Council: Learning in the Shadows: How Immigration Enforcement Harms Students and Schools
Analysis of how enforcement near schools raises absenteeism, fear, and emotional harm among students and families.
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/immigration-enforcement-harms-students-schools/

Stanford Study: Student Absences Rose After Immigration Raids
Research shows a roughly 22% increase in absences among K–5 students in California’s Central Valley during enforcement sweeps.
https://news.stanford.edu/stories/2025/06/student-absences-immigration-california-study

Brookings Institution: What Harsh Immigration Policies Mean for Students, Families, and Schools
Explores threats to Head Start, adult learning, Title III funding, and full K–12 access rooted in initial protections like Plyler v. Doe.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/what-harsh-immigration-policies-mean-for-students-families-and-schools/

Migration Policy Institute: Schools Navigating Immigration Enforcement
Highlights how safe-zone policies benefit students at risk of deportation and underscores schooling as sanctuary.
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/news/schools-immigrant-students-enforcement

Understanding & Communicating the Impact of Blocking Education Pathways for Immigrant Learners 

This section helps school and district leaders understand, name, and clearly communicate the real impact of federal rollbacks on immigrant learners. Use it as a guide to counter harmful narratives, and to affirm to students, families, and communities that immigrant learners belong in Minnesota schools.

---

Every child has the right to an education, regardless of immigration status. The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed this in Plyler v. Doe (1982), ruling that denying undocumented children access to K–12 public schools violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The federal cuts to education access for immigrant and undocumented learners are not neutral adjustments or simple budgetary cuts; they are deliberate efforts to deny immigrant and undocumented learners the right to belong in public education and to limit their futures.

These rollbacks are designed to make education conditional on immigration status, erase undocumented students from the continuum of supports, and reinforce a racialized narrative of who is “deserving” of investment and education access.

Here’s how students, schools, and communities are impacted: 

1. Early learning access is denied, widening opportunity gaps before kindergarten.

• Undocumented children are being barred from Head Start, undermining school readiness and widening opportunity gaps for tens of thousands of learners.
• The Impact: Denying early learning access entrenches inequities from the very start of a child’s education, creating lifelong barriers to opportunity.

2. College and career pathways are blocked, harming educational, social, and economic success.

• Eligibility for dual enrollment, early college, and CTE programs is being stripped away, leaving students without supports critical to success beyond high school.
• The Impact: Students lose proven pathways that build skills, accelerate graduation, and prepare them for higher education and careers, weakening student success and Minnesota’s workforce pipeline and economic future.

3. Tuition equity is threatened, closing doors to higher education for immigrant students.

• Federal threats pressure states and colleges to roll back in-state tuition and financial aid for undocumented students, making higher education unattainable.
• The Impact: Students face unaffordable barriers to higher education, forcing many to abandon college aspirations, undermining Minnesota’s Dream Act, and eroding access and equity in higher education for tens of thousands of learners.

5. Adult education programs are dismantled, especially in under-resourced communities.

• Restrictions cut funding for ESL, GED, and workforce programs, particularly in rural areas.
• The Impact: Adult learners lose access to critical skills and credentials, immigrant families lose opportunities for stability and mobility, and Minnesota loses out on needed talent and workforce readiness.

6. Schools and families lose trusted supports.

• Mixed-status families are cut off from school-based programs that connect them to learning and community.
• The Impact: Students are left without safe, affirming supports that nurture belonging and success, isolating families and weakening school-community trust.

What this means for Minnesota schools

Federal rollbacks that strip immigrant and undocumented learners of their educational rights are harmful to students and communities, and they put Minnesota schools out of compliance with constitutional law, state statutes, and PELSB standards.

Minnesota schools have a legal duty and a moral responsibility to protect every learner’s right to education, regardless of immigration status. That means affirming immigrant students’ belonging, sustaining cradle-to-career supports, and ensuring families can trust schools as safe and inclusive spaces.

Protecting these rights is not only about compliance. It is essential to Minnesota’s future workforce, communities, and shared commitment to justice and opportunity for every learner.

What’s Already Affirmed in Law:

While Plyler v. Doe protects K–12 access, lawsuits are now challenging whether federal attempts to restrict Head Start, dual enrollment, and tuition equity overstep constitutional limits and state authority over education. Courts are weighing whether federal bans on tuition equity unlawfully interfere with states’ power to set higher education policies.

The Court Response to Federal Directives Blocking Education Acess:

• Plyler v. Doe endures. The 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision still guarantees undocumented children the right to free K–12 public education. No court has overturned this precedent, affirming that schools must remain accessible to all children regardless of immigration status.
• States pause enforcement of Head Start restrictions
  In July 2025, nearly 20 states secured a court-approved temporary pause on new federal rules barring immigrant families from Head Start, dual enrollment, and adult education programs. This delay halts enforcement while litigation proceeds.
  Read more:
  https://www.oregoncapitalchronicle.com/2025/07/29/oregon-other-democratic-states-secure-40-day-pause-on-head-start-immigration-requirements
• Texas Dream Act struck down. On June 4, 2025, a federal judge permanently invalidated Texas’s policy allowing undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition and state financial aid.
  https://immigrationforum.org/article/blocking-of-texas-in-state-tuition-for-undocumented-students-explainer/ National Immigration Forum
  https://www.texastribune.org/2025/06/04/texas-justice-department-lawsuit-undocumented-in-state-tuition
• Some colleges forced to reclassify students. Following the Texas ruling, public colleges were ordered to identify undocumented students and classify them as out-of-state residents for tuition purposes, dramatically increasing costs.
  https://www.kbtx.com/2025/06/25/texas-colleges-directed-identify-undocumented-students-change-their-tuition-out-of-state/ https://www.kbtx.com
• Lawsuits mounting in response. The Austin Community College board, along with civil rights organizations, has filed motions to intervene and defend the Texas Dream Act, citing abrupt legislative and judicial changes that harm students and undermine institutional autonomy.
  https://www.kut.org/education/2025-06-23/austin-tx-community-college-texas-dream-act-lawsuit-undocumented-students-in-state-tuition

---

What This Means for Minnesota Educators & Students:

The Plyler precedent continues to guarantee that every learner—regardless of immigration status—has the right to free K–12 education. Minnesota educators can confidently uphold this.

What’s more, Minnesota Dream Act allows Minnesota to retain authority over over tuition equity, financial aid, and college access, requiring colleges to continue providing immigrant and undocumented students with early learning, dual enrollment, and college pathways.

Federal attempts to restrict these programs cannot erase state-level commitments.

Your Legal Obligations to Support Immigrant Learners and Uphold Access to Education Pathways

Districts are legally required to uphold the rights of all students—regardless of immigration status. Minnesota law ensures immigrant learners can access early education, college and career pathways, and the full continuum of public education. These protections remain in effect, even in the face of federal rollbacks or political pressure.

Here’s what districts and schools are still required to uphold:

1. Equitable Access to Education and Protection from Discrimination 

• The Minnesota Constitution Article XIII, Section 1: Requires the legislature to establish a “general and uniform system of public schools,” interpreted as guaranteeing equitable access to education for all Minnesota students, regardless of immigration status.
• The Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. § 363A.13) Prohibits discrimination based on national origin, which includes protections for immigrant and undocumented students.
• The Safe and Supportive Schools Act requires schools to create safe and supportive learning environments, including anti-bullying protections and affirming policies for students targeted by harassment, especially marginalized students such as students of color, immigrant, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ students.

2. Equitable Access to Postsecondary and Career Pathways

• Minnesota Dream Act (MN Stat. § 135A.043) Also known as the “Prosperity Act,” allows eligible undocumented students (including DACA recipients and other qualifying individuals) to:
  • Pay in-state tuition at Minnesota public colleges and universities
  • Qualify for state financial aid, including grants and scholarships
  • Access work-study programs and certain private scholarships funded through the state
• English Learner Education Statutes (§§ 124D.59–124D.61): Mandates that schools identify English Learners (ELs) and provide appropriate language instruction and academic support. This protects access to success in core academics, dual enrollment, and career programs.
• The Achievement and Integration statute (Minn. Stat. § 124D.861) Requires districts to develop strategies that close opportunity gaps and promote racial and linguistic integration, including:
  • Early college access
  • Career and technical education pathways
  • Culturally relevant instruction and support systems.

See more in MnEEP’s Safe & Supportive Schools for Immigrant and English Learners Toolkit.

Under Plyler v. Doe and Minnesota law, schools must affirm K–12 access, sustain college and career pathways, and defend tuition equity for every learner, including undocumented students.

Despite federal threats and pushbacks, every student has a right to learn, regardless of immigration status.

Cutting or hiding these opportunities isolates students and undermines their educational rights, weakens Minnesota’s workforce, and threatens our shared future as a strong, equitable, and healthy state.

Push Back/Push Forward

Despite federal attempts to cut immigrant and undocumented learners off from education, Minnesota law protects education access and equity for immigrant and undocumented learners—and educators have the power and responsibility to uphold it.

Here’s what schools can do right now to Push Back/Push Forward with equity:

1. Affirm every student’s right to K–12 education.

• Under Plyler v. Doe and Minnesota’s Constitution, undocumented students cannot be denied access to K–12 public education.
• Make this clear in your school communications, enrollment practices, and family engagement so immigrant families know schools remain safe and accessible.

2. Protect and promote post-secondary pathways.

• Work with counselors, advisors, families, and community partners to proactively and clearly communicate opportunities like dual enrollment, PSEO, workforce development, and higher education early, often, and in students’ home languages.
• Create accountability systems to ensure immigrant students receive the tools, resources, and supports they need to plan for and successfully navigate workforce development and postsecondary options.

3. Defend tuition equity and state financial aid.

• Minnesota’s Dream Act guarantees in-state tuition and access to state aid for undocumented students.
• Train counselors, advisors, and family liaisons to share these rights proactively in multiple languages and guide families through applications.

4. Advocate publicly and clearly for immigrant student rights and achievement.

• Federal rhetoric undermines immigrant student belonging and erodes community trust in schools.
• Use board resolutions, public statements, and district commitments to affirm that equity in education is both a civil rights obligation and an investment in Minnesota’s future.

5. Strengthen language access for immigrant families

• Federal rollbacks are pressuring districts to scale back interpretation and translation services.
• Ensure all enrollment, financial aid, and rights information is provided in families’ home languages with reliable systems for translation and interpretation.

Push Back/Push Forward Together.

Partner with immigrant-rights organizations, higher education institutions, and families to defend educational access. Collective action ensures students know they belong and strengthens the state’s resistance to harmful federal overreach.

Explore more strategies and tools for upholding immigrant and undocumented student rights, dignity, and safety in the Creating Safe & Supportive Schools for Immigrant & English Learners Toolkit. 

Legal analysis, briefs, commentary, and thought leadership on the impact of federal directives blocking education access for immigrant and undocumented learners and how school leaders can respond.

---

Public Education for Immigrant Students: Understanding Plyler v. Doe (National Immigration Law Center, explainer)
Clear explanation of what Plyler v. Doe requires, what states/districts must not do, what powers schools have, and how this case acts as the legal foundation for K-12 access regardless of immigration status.
https://www.nilc.org/resources/plyler-v-doe-case-explainer

How Federal Policies Are Undermining Educational Opportunity for Immigrant Students (Learning Policy Institute, Aug 2025)
Explores how recent and proposed federal policies are eroding both access and protections for immigrant students in K-12 and beyond. It offers data and legal context about Plyler v. Doe, enforcement, and states’ obligations.
https://learningpolicyinstitute.org/blog/how-federal-policies-are-undermining-educational-opportunity-immigrant-students

EdSurge – Rolling Back Education Access for Undocumented Students
Covers the consequences of suspending in-state tuition, including rising dropout risks and identity-based targeting.
https://www.edsurge.com/news/2025-08-04-rolling-back-education-access-for-undocumented-students

Undocumented Kids Face Narrowed Pathways, Stifled Futures (The 74)
How policy shifts are already constricting the options for undocumented learners in K-12, higher education, and career/technical pathways.
https://www.the74million.org/article/undocumented-kids-face-narrowed-pathways-stifled-futures

AP News – Undocumented Students Losing Access to College Support
Cases in Florida and nationwide where rescinded tuition benefits force students into dropping out or redirecting life plans.
https://apnews.com/article/534249b0f4e0af2a38f327fe9299910a

The 74 Million – Undocumented Students Rethink College in Texas
Highlights how Texas’ removal of in-state tuition options doubled financial barriers and disrupted educational trajectories.
https://www.the74million.org/article/undocumented-students-rethink-college-in-texas/

Presidents’ Alliance – Impact of Repealing In-State Tuition Policies
Deep dive into how such rollbacks undermine workforce retention, economic equity, and long-term community investment.
https://www.presidentsalliance.org/press/oklahoma-reversal-on-in-state-tuition-for-dreamers-hurts-students-undermines-education-and-state-economy/

Understanding & Communicating the Impact of Threats to Language Rights 

This section helps school and district leaders understand, name, and clearly communicate the impact of federal rollbacks on language rights. Use it as a guide to counter harmful narratives, affirm multilingualism as a right and resource, and show families that Minnesota schools remain committed to language access and equity.

---

Language access is more than translation. It is a right and a resource, and a critical tool for learning.

Recent federal rollbacks—eliminating agency guidance on interpretation and translation—strip away essential protections and send a dangerous signal: that immigrant families and English Learners are less deserving of dignity, belonging, and opportunity in our public schools.

These are not technical changes.

They are deliberate efforts to undermine immigrant student dignity and rights and make schools less accessible, less inclusive, and less equitable to immigrants, students, and families.

In Minnesota, these changes directly threaten our legal and moral commitments to language rights, multilingualism, and educational equity.

Here’s how federal rollbacks to language rights impacts schools and students:

1. Families lose access to critical school communication.

• Language access is a civil right and a cornerstone of equity. When schools cannot communicate with families in their home languages or provide multilingual supports, students are denied equal opportunity, families are excluded, and the very promise of public education is undermined.
• With federal guidance revoked, some districts are no longer providing translated IEPs, enrollment materials, or discipline notices.
• The Impact: Parents cannot advocate for their children or participate fully in their education, violating their rights and weakening school–family trust.

2. English Learners face unmet needs.

• Without clear federal requirements, some schools are cutting back on interpretation and translation services.
• The Impact: Students risk being excluded from instruction, assessments, and supports, widening opportunity gaps and undermining Minnesota’s goal of equitable outcomes for all learners.

3. Bilingual and dual-language programs are put at risk.

• By framing multilingual education as unnecessary, federal policies undermine programs that affirm students’ identities and expand opportunity.
• The Impact: Students lose access to culturally validating instruction proven to boost achievement, graduation rates, and long-term success.

4. Trust between schools and immigrant families is eroded.

• When families can’t access school communication in their home language, schools become sites of exclusion rather than belonging.
• The Impact: Parents disengage, students feel isolated, and community confidence in schools is weakened.

5. The long-term harm is systemic.

• Stripping away language access not only denies students the tools they need to succeed now, it dismantles the foundation Minnesota relies on to prepare students for a multilingual, multiracial future.
• The Impact: Equity gaps widen. Community trust is eroded. And Minnesota’s educational, economic, and civic future is put at risk.

What the Courts Say About Language Access

Language rights are civil rights. For decades, federal and state laws have guaranteed that students learning English are entitled to the services, instruction, and supports they need to succeed in school.

These protections remain in full legal force—despite recent federal attempts to roll them back through executive orders and funding threats.

• Lau v. Nichols (1974):
  The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that failing to provide English Learners with appropriate language services violates Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on national origin.
• Plyler v. Doe (1982):
  Affirmed that public schools must enroll all children, regardless of immigration status. Schools cannot deny access to undocumented students or restrict programs based on legal status.

What’s Been Rescinded —& How the Courts Have Responded:

2015 English Learner Guidance (Rescinded in August 2025):

• In August, the U.S. Department of Education revoked key guidance that had outlined schools’ obligations to English Learners under federal law.
• This guidance clarified requirements for:
  • Language assistance services
  • Translation and interpretation for families
  • Meaningful access to instruction
• The document is now labeled “for historical purposes only”—signaling it is no longer active policy.

Revised Title VI Certification (Issued February 2025, Courts Struck Down in August 2025):

• A new federal policy would have required school districts and government agencies to certify compliance with a revised interpretation of Title VI.
• However, on August 14, 2025, a federal district court in Maryland struck down the policy, ruling that:
  • The Department violated procedural requirements by bypassing public notice and comment.
  • The guidance was “arbitrary and capricious” under federal administrative law.

What the Rescission Does NOT Do, and What Legal Constants Remain:

• It doesn’t erase federal laws. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Educational Opportunities Act (EEOA), and court precedents (like Lau v. Nichols, Castañeda v. Pickard) still bind schools to ensure that English learners are not denied equal access to educational programs.
• It doesn’t reduce state or local obligations. States and districts still must comply with their own laws governing multilingual learners.
• It doesn’t automatically retract past guidance or expectations. Some schools and districts may have built programming, policies, or internal expectations around the now-rescinded guidance; those don’t vanish overnight.
• TESOL International issued a statement opposing the rescission and emphasized that it does not alter the legal obligations of states, districts, or educators. https://www.tesol.org/news/tesol-statement-on-the-rescission-of-guidance-on-serving-multilingual-learners-of-english-in-us-public-schools

 

What This Means for Minnesota Schools & Students:

Federal rollbacks do not erase language rights and obligations to multilingual learners and families under Minnesota law.

Minnesota schools are legally required to provide English learners with the language access, services, supports, and home language communications they need to succeed. Denying these services—or retreating from them under federal pressure— violates both state and federal law.

In Minnesota, multilingualism is not a liability; it’s a protected right and an educational asset schools must uphold.

Your Legal Obligations to Ensure Language Access and Support Multilingual Learners

Districts are legally required to provide language access for students and families and to uphold the educational rights of all learners—including immigrant and undocumented students—regardless of federal rollbacks or political pressure.

Schools must offer the services, supports, and inclusive environments that multilingual learners need to be successful. These obligations are grounded in civil rights law and reflect Minnesota’s statewide commitment to educational equity.

Here’s what districts and schools are still required to uphold:

---

1. Equitable Access to Safe, Supportive Learning Environments

• The Minnesota Constitution Article XIII, Section 1: Requires the legislature to establish a “general and uniform system of public schools,” interpreted as guaranteeing equitable access to education for all Minnesota students, regardless of immigration status.
• The Minnesota Human Rights Act (Minn. Stat. § 363A.13) prohibits discrimination “in any manner in the full utilization of or benefit from any educational institution” based on race, national origin, and other protected classes.
• The Achievement and Integration statute (Minn. Stat. § 124D.861)  mandates that districts implement strategies to close racial and linguistic opportunity gaps, including supports for multilingual learners.
• The Safe and Supportive Schools Act requires schools to create safe and supportive learning environments, including anti-bullying protections and affirming policies for students targeted by harassment, especially marginalized students such as students of color, immigrant, Indigenous, and LGBTQ+ students.
• See more in MnEEP’s Safe & Supportive Schools for Immigrant and English Learners

2. Language Rights, Access, and Equitable Supports for English Learners (ELs).

• English Learner Statute (Minn. Stat. § 124D.59 – 124D.64):Requires schools to identify and serve English Learners, provide culturally responsive instruction, and track progress toward language proficiency and academic success.
• Language Access Plan Requirements for Students & Families  (Minn. Stat. § 123B.32) 
  Beginning in the 2025–26 school year, every school board must adopt a public Language Access Plan outlining how the district will provide interpretation and translation for students and adults who communicate in a language other than English or need additional assistance due to a disability. Plans must also be included in school handbooks.
• Minnesota Rules Parts 3501.1200 & 3501.1210 — EL Language Development Standards
  These rules define the state standards for English language development, covering social/instructional language as well as academic domains (language arts, math, science, social studies). These standards are legally binding for EL instruction.
• Minnesota Rules 8710.4150 & 8710.4400 — Educator Licensure Requirements
  • 8710.4150: Teachers of Bilingual/Bicultural Education
  • 8710.4400: Teachers of English as a Second Language (ESL)
    These rules define licensure requirements for educators working with English Learners, including content knowledge, cultural proficiency, and oral/written language competency. Ensuring that staff meet these standards is a legal compliance requirement.
• Learning English for Academic Proficiency and Success (LEAPS) Act (2014, as amended)
  The LEAPS Act strengthens Minnesota’s EL laws by adding definitions (e.g. SLIFE), expanding accountability, and including multilingual seals, nonpublic school participation, and district responsibilities for long-term EL success.
• Parental Notice Requirement (Minn. Stat. § 123B.32)
  Schools are legally required to notify parents or guardians when a student is identified as an English Learner, ensuring informed consent and transparency in program placement.

Language access is a civil right and a legal requirement in Minnesota.

Despite federal threats and rolllbacks, all Minnesota schools must adopt Language Access Plans, provide translation and interpretation, and deliver equitable services for English Learners.

Protecting multilingualism is not optional—it affirms identity, strengthens learning, and ensures compliance with both state and federal law.

Push Back/Push Forward

Despite harmful federal rhetoric and rollbacks, Minnesota law affirms that language access and multilingualism are critical to the success of every learner, strengthening classrooms and preparing students for a future in a diverse, multiracial democracy.

Here’s what educators can do right now to Push Back/Push Forward with equity:

1. Affirm language as a right and resource.

• Minnesota law (124D.59–61) requires equitable instruction and services for English Learners.
• The Minnesota Constitution and Human Rights Act guarantee nondiscrimination based on language or national origin.

2. Empower educators to uphold language rights.

• Train teachers and staff on their obligations under Minnesota law to provide equitable instruction for English Learners.
• Support professional development in culturally and linguistically responsive pedagogy.
• Remind educators that protecting students’ home languages affirms identity, strengthens learning, and is legally required.

3. Audit and strengthen your Language Access Plan.

• Make sure it covers translation, interpretation, and accessibility procedures.
• Publish the plan in multiple languages and include it in school handbooks.

4. Guarantee multilingual communication with families.

• Translate critical documents like enrollment, discipline, and special education notices.
• Provide interpretation services for conferences, disciplinary hearings, and IEP meetings.
• Follow MDE’s Language Access Framework for compliance and best practice.

5. Center multilingualism in learning.

• Protect bilingual/dual language programs and heritage language instruction.
• Frame multilingual education as a strength and asset to Minnesota’s future.

5. Build family trust.

• Communicate proactively with immigrant and multilingual families in their home languages.
• Ensure parents know their rights to interpretation and full participation.

Push Back/Push Forward together.

Minnesota has made clear: Language access is not optional—it is a right, a resource, and a legal requirement. By affirming multilingualism, maintaining translation and interpretation, and centering language as an asset, schools protect student dignity, comply with state law, and strengthen community trust.

Standing together, educators and communities can push back against harmful federal rollbacks and push forward a Minnesota where every student’s unique cultural, racial, gender, and linguistic identities are nurtured as vital assets in every classroom and school community.

Legal analysis, briefs, and thought leadership on the impact of federal directives around language access and how education leaders can respond.

 

---

EdWeek — Rescission of EL “Dear Colleague” letter (Aug 2025)
The Education Department quietly rescinded the 2015 Dear Colleague guidance for English Learners (ELs), which detailed district obligations under Title VI and other laws. The letter is now marked “for historical purposes only.” Education Week

K-12 Dive — Rescinds EL equal access guidance
Confirms that the Obama-era guidance ensuring “equal access” for ELs (including translation/interpretation and meaningful participation) has been withdrawn. K-12 Dive

ABC News — Education Dept revokes guidance on English learners
Reports the revocation of the 2015 letter, emphasizing how it had served as a roadmap for schools to provide adequate EL services. ABC News

Chalkbeat — Trump administration rescinds school guidance for serving English learners
Details the same rescission, notes the impacts (translation, support services) and reactions from educators. Chalkbeat

NILC (National Immigration Law Center): Trump Administration’s Attempts to Dismantle Civil Rights Law Do Not Erase Civil Rights Law
Commentary that supports “Language access civil rights law remains in force despite executive orders,” explaining that rollbacks of guidance do not erase statutory or case law obligation.
Read more from NILC

The Century Foundation: Choosing English-Plus, Not English-Only: What’s Wrong with the Administration’s New Language Access Guidance

Explores how new guidance shifts away from translating or interpreting materials and pushes toward English‑only services, and the impact it could have on state/federal grantees.
Read more at the Century Foundation.