Federal threats cited in push for student immigrant protections
'I grew up undocumented, and knew from a young age that I was different from other students. I couldn't travel to visit my family in Peru, I didn't qualify for certain programs that my peers did, my parents and I couldn't own our own home, and I was constantly visiting lawyers' offices,' Romero Gonzalez, now an education advocate at Massachusetts Advocates for Children, recalled.
'But the one thing I knew that I had access to, no matter what, was school, was an education,' she added.
Gonzalez and other education, immigrant and disability advocates are flagging urgent concerns about federal threats to education rights for immigrant and disabled students.
Immigrant parents, attorneys and teachers told legislators at a hearing Tuesday that passing a bill codifying federal student protections into state law would help quell fears in immigrant and disability communities under the Trump administration, which has cracked down on its enforcement of illegal immigration and may look to adjust disability services policy since President Donald Trump took office in January.
The Sen. Pavel Payano and Rep. Frank Moran bill (S 436 / H 650) would not add new legal protections, but would codify four different protections related to English Language Learners, immigrant students and students with disabilities established by federal statutes and guidance.
'One in eight Massachusetts students is an English Language Learner, and one in six Massachusetts students has a disability,' Payano said. 'Federal rollbacks threaten the rights that protect these children. By codifying these rights into state law, we ensure that Massachusetts continues to uphold equity and education, no matter what.'
The bill would codify the right to public education for students regardless of their documentation status and codify provisions in special education law protecting students with disabilities from inequitable school suspensions or expulsions directly related to their disabilities. It would also codify federal guidance addressing needs of English Language learners with disabilities, along with those ensuring interpreters are provided by schools and are not just bilingual, but trained and qualified.
Chief Deputy Attorney General Abby Taylor called on the state to codify the protections, harkening back to when Massachusetts codified the right to abortion five years ago, before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.
'In 2020, more than a year before the Supreme Court overturned 50 years of legal precedent when it issued the Dobbs decision, the Massachusetts Legislature took action, had the foresight, to pass the Roe Act and to codify abortion rights into statute,' Taylor said.
'Today, we find ourselves in a similar situation with a federal government that is hostile to civil rights and to longstanding protections for our students,' she continued.
Taylor said the AG's office continues to uphold the federal laws still in place, but the office is flooded with concerns, especially in the context of changes and cuts to the Department of Education, some of which could impact student civil rights. President Donald Trump has filed an executive order to close the Department of Education and 'return authority' back to the states, which he said 'would provide children and their families the opportunity to escape a system that is failing them.'
There has been discussion among Massachusetts elected officials, Attorney General Andrea Campbell included, about whether the United States is facing a constitutional crisis under the Trump administration.
'We drafted it out of concern based on what we were hearing during the election, and then given the outcome of the election, our concerns have only, I think, deepened since the inauguration,' said Diana Santiago, legal director at Massachusetts Advocates for Children.
Representatives from groups like nonprofit Reimagining Migration and Mass. Advocates for Children spoke about threats specifically to Plyler v. Doe, the landmark 1982 U.S. Supreme Court case establishing that states must provide free K-12 education to all students, regardless of their immigration status. In New Jersey, Oklahoma and Texas, action challenging free public education for undocumented students has been recently proposed, and in Tennessee, recent action has been paused. The state of California has codified Doe.
Numerous mothers of ELL students also spoke in Spanish, with English translators, about the aspect of the bill that would bolster translation services. Mothers talked about their experiences being unable to participate in their children's educations, or speak with their teachers, because of a lack of available and adequate translation services. Some of the mothers have students in Boston Public Schools, which states that it enrolls over 17,000 English Learner students, 31% of the district's total student population.
Jessica Lander, the 2023 Massachusetts history teacher of the year, teaches immigrant students and spoke about the lack of access to translators for both teachers and parents.
'I see the ways in which our immigrant origin parents are excluded from [Individualized Education Program] meetings, which is absolutely not okay. And so ensuring that we have translators there, available, easily accessible, is really essential to ensuring equal access to education for our kids,' Lander said.
Local News Headlines
WWLP-22News, an NBC affiliate, began broadcasting in March 1953 to provide local news, network, syndicated, and local programming to western Massachusetts. Watch the 22News Digital Edition weekdays at 4 p.m. on WWLP.com.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WWLP.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Epoch Times
an hour ago
- Epoch Times
Trump Says Brazil's Lula Can Call Him ‘Anytime He Wants'
President Donald Trump said Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva is welcome to call him 'anytime,' as tensions rise between the two governments over new U.S. tariffs and sanctions on a Brazilian Supreme Court justice. 'He can talk to me anytime he wants,' Trump told reporters on Friday at the White House, speaking of his Brazilian counterpart.
Yahoo
4 hours ago
- Yahoo
West Vancouver demolition order halted after appeal court finds judge had conflict
B.C.'s appeal court has overturned an earlier decision upholding a demolition order for a West Vancouver mansion. Homeowner Rosa Dona Este was successful in her bid to overturn the earlier court decision, after it was found the judge who allowed the order to go ahead had previously worked for a law firm representing the municipality and had consulted on the matter of Este's home. Este had argued against the judge's decision about the validity of the demolition order but also raised concerns over the judge's involvement in the case before being appointed to B.C.'s Supreme Court. 'According to Dr. Este, the judge also erred by failing to recuse herself based on a reasonable apprehension of bias,' said the appeal court's decision, handed down earlier this month. 'Este raised this issue prior to the hearing and advanced an application asking the judge to recuse herself on this basis. The judge dismissed the application, noting that almost seven years had elapsed since she had worked at the firm and stating she could not recall having ever been involved in the file or related matters.' While Judge Francesca Marzari had said previously that she did not recall working on the case involving Este's home, a lawyer for the West Vancouver district later filed an affidavit that said Marzari 'had sent an email to employees of the District advising them on matters related to the possible demolition of Dr. Este's home.' 'This information about the judge's prior involvement in the matter under appeal is clearly relevant to Dr. Este's allegation of apprehension of bias. For the reasons that follow, I conclude Dr. Este's applications must be granted,' wrote appeal court Justice Bruce Butler. Butler noted that if the appeal were refused, 'steps could be taken that could lead to irreparable harm to Dr. Este.' 'The balance of convenience, and particularly the overriding concern for maintaining judicial independence and impartiality, weighs in favour of granting a stay,' he wrote. The property in question is a 6,000-sq.-ft. waterfront home at 2668 Bellevue Ave. and was bought in 2003 by Este and her mother, Mina Esteghamat‑Ardakan. Este lived in the home until 2015 when a fire caused extensive damage. The home remained uninhabited and in a derelict state until 2020 when, following a number of neighbour complaints, the district ordered it demolished. Complications arose when the district found Este had rebuilt parts of the home without having sought proper permits or permission from her co-owner. Este's ex-husband, Mehran Taherkhani, also fought the demolition, arguing he had a stake in the matter because of divorce proceedings set for trial in 2026. Este and her mother had also previously been in court, battling over control of the property. sip@ Related Family battle over derelict West Vancouver house doesn't sway judge, who orders demolition to proceed
USA Today
12 hours ago
- USA Today
From marginal religious groups to mainstream Christians: Why some see a shift in Supreme Court cases
The court's first case involving a Rastafarian highlights the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history, even as more cases come from mainstream Christian groups. WASHINGTON – There have been no shortage of religious groups seeking help from the Supreme Court in recent years, including three cases last term that involved the Catholic Church. But the religion at the center of a case set for after the summer is not nearly as well represented in the population - or in the courtroom. In fact, it appears to be the first time the Supreme Court will hear an appeal from a Rastafarian. Damon Landor said his religious rights were violated when his dreadlocks were forcibly shaved by Louisiana prison guards. More: Supreme Court to decide if prison officials can be sued over inmates' religious rights Handcuffed to a chair while his dreadlocks were shaved off Landor had shown prison officials a copy of a court ruling that dreadlocks grown for religious reasons should be accommodated. But an intake guard threw the ruling in the trash and Landor was handcuffed to a chair while his knee-length locks were shaved off. The justices will decide whether Landor can sue the guards for compensation under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Landor – whose appeal was backed by more than 30 religious groups and the Justice Department − argues that monetary damages are often the only way to hold prison officials accountable when religious rights are violated. Legal experts on religion cases expect the court will side with the Rastafarian. That would be consistent not just with the high success rate of appeals the court agrees to hear from religious people, but also with the role smaller religious groups have played in the court's history. Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists Most of the religious cases Richard Garnett teaches in his classes at the University of Notre Dame Law School involve smaller religious communities, including Jehovah's Witnesses and Seventh-day Adventists. 'The story of religious freedom in America has developed through cases involving members of minority religions,' Garnett said. Other court watchers, however, say that was more true in the past than it is now. 'That's kind of a legacy view,' said Carl Esbeck, an expert on religious liberty at the University of Missouri School of Law. In fact, a 2022 study found that; since 2005, the winning religion in most Supreme Court religious cases was a mainstream Christian organization. In the past, by contrast, pro-religion outcomes more frequently favored minority or marginal religious organizations, according to the analysis by Lee Epstein at Washington University in St. Louis and Eric Posner of the University of Chicago Law School. 'The religion clauses of the First Amendment were once understood to provide modest but meaningful protection for non-mainstream religions from discrimination by governments that favored mainstream Christian organizations, practices, or values,' they wrote. Similarly, traditionalist Christians – such as orthodox Catholics and Baptists – had been significantly less successful than other religious groups in getting accommodations from lower federal courts from 1986 to 1995, according to a study by Michael Heise of Cornell Law School and Gregory Sisk of the University of St. Thomas School of Law. But from 2006 to 2015, their disadvantage 'appeared to fade into statistical insignificance,' they wrote in 2022. The Supreme Court, they said, 'appears to be setting the stage for a more equitable and expansive protection of religious liberty.' Colorado and the gay wedding cake debate Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, agrees that the court has taken an expansive view of religious liberty protections. But he says it hasn't always been equitable. In 2018, the court said Colorado had shown "religious hostility" to a baker who didn't want to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. More: How a Supreme Court case about a gay couple's wedding cake got caught up in Israeli judicial reform But that same month, Mach said, the court upheld President Donald Trump's travel ban 'even in the face of Trump's repeated unambiguous statements condemning Islam and Muslims.' More broadly, he said, the court's 'general hostility to the separation of church and state' erodes protections for minority groups promised by the First Amendment's prohibition against the government favoring a specific religion or favoring religion in general. 'Built into that structure is necessarily a protection against the imposition by the majority of its favored religious doctrine,' he said. In February, President Donald Trump signed an executive order aimed at 'Eradicating anti-Christian Bias' and calling on agencies to eliminate the "anti-Christian weaponization of government." The administration cited that order when telling federal employees in a July 28 memo they may discuss and promote their religious beliefs in the workplace. More: Supreme Court blocks Catholic charter school in big setback for religion advocates Ruling for Amish built on to benefit other religions In June, the Supreme Court built upon a 1972 ruling for the Amish as it affirmed the religious rights of parents to remove their elementary school children from class when storybooks with LGBTQ+ characters are being used. When deciding more than 50 years ago that Amish parents did not have to keep their children in school until age 16 as Wisconsin required, the court said those parents had an argument 'that probably few other religious groups or sects could make.' But Justice Samuel Alito left no doubt about the broader significance of Wisconsin v. Yoder in the 6-3 opinion he authored in June that sided with parents from a variety of religious backgrounds − including Roman Catholic but also Muslim, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church and other faiths − who objected to the LGBTQ+ storybooks used in Maryland school district. 'Yoder is an important precedent of this Court, and it cannot be breezily dismissed as a special exception granted to one particular religious minority,' Alito wrote. More: Supreme Court sides with Maryland parents who want to avoid LGBTQ+ books in public schools In a 2020 speech to the conservative Federalist Society, Alito had warned that 'religious liberty is in danger of becoming a second-class right.' He listed examples of cases he'd judged about religious minorities, including the rights of Muslim police officers to have beards, of a Jewish prisoner to organize a Torah study group and whether a Native American could keep a bear for religious services. The baker who didn't want to make a cake for a same-sex wedding and Catholic nuns who objected to insurance coverage for contraceptives 'deserve no less protection,' Alito said about more recent cases. More: Supreme Court sides with Catholic Charities in case about tax exemptions and religion `Clear pattern of preference for religious groups' Cornell Law School Professor Nelson Tebbe said more of the claims about religious freedom started to come from mainstream majority Christian groups as political polarization increased and as the gay rights movement picked up speed. 'Suddenly, civil libertarian groups who had been on the side of minority religions…started to realize that civil rights laws could be vulnerable to religious attacks by conservative Christians and they started to get worried,' Tebbe said. As the court has shifted its approach, he said, the justices have both granted exemptions from regulations that burden religion as well as said government must treat religious groups no differently than secular organizations when providing public benefits − such as school vouchers. 'While both of those could be seen as understandable on their own terms, when you put them together, there's a clear pattern of preference for religious groups,' he said. 'It's a pretty dramatic moment in constitutional law in this area.' Garnett, the religious freedom expert at the University of Notre Dame Law School, said the court's decisions are a reflection of the ongoing debate over how much accommodation should be given in a country with diverse religious views. 'So the fact that those cases are coming up isn't because the court sort of shifted to protecting majority groups,' he said. 'It's because events on the ground shifted. And the nature of the controversies that are served up are different.'
