Abstract
This paper examines the legal protections that shield Minnesota's education system from enforcing federal immigration law, particularly considering the Trump administration's 2025 rescission of the sensitive locations policy. It argues that Minnesota schools are legally insulated from federal coercion because of the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine, the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) privacy protections. These safeguards are reinforced by the Supreme Court case, Plyler v. Doe, which affirms the right of all children, regardless of immigration status, to access public education. The paper further explores how local and state laws in Minnesota interact with federal immigration enforcement mechanisms, such as the 287(g) program, and why the rollback of protective policies raises constitutional concerns. It concludes that Minnesota has the legal authority to adopt sanctuary-like measures within its education system, ensuring safety, trust, and educational access for undocumented and mixed-status students.