HR-9853-119
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Sponsored by Jesús García (D-IL)
What it does
This bill would establish a competitive federal grant program, administered by the Secretary of Education, to fund schools, early childhood programs, colleges, nonprofits, and legal service providers that support students and school personnel affected by immigration enforcement actions. Eligible recipients could use funds for mental health services, bilingual counselors, emergency assistance (food, shelter, transportation), legal service referrals, staff training, and community outreach. The bill would authorize $250 million per year from fiscal years 2027 through 2031, totaling $1.25 billion, and would prohibit grantees from collecting or disclosing students' immigration status information.
Who benefits
Students who are unauthorized immigrants or who have household members without lawful immigration status, particularly those experiencing anxiety, absenteeism, or academic disruption tied to immigration enforcement. U.S.-citizen children living in mixed-status households. Bilingual counselors, social workers, and school psychologists who would be hired or expanded under the program. Legal aid organizations and nonprofit immigrant services groups that would receive grant funding or partnership resources. School districts in high-enforcement communities that currently lack resources to respond to immigration-related crises. Early childhood programs serving immigrant families.
Who is hurt
Taxpayers who would fund the $1.25 billion authorization. Competing grant applicants in other education priority areas who may face reduced attention or resources from the Department of Education. Immigration enforcement agencies (DHS/ICE) whose operational flexibility near schools could be indirectly constrained by school protocols developed under the bill. School districts not located in high-enforcement areas, which would be deprioritized in grant selection. Applicants without existing nonprofit or legal service partnerships, who would be disadvantaged in the competitive grant process.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the Supreme Court's ruling in Plyler v. Doe (1982) guarantees all children — regardless of immigration status — a constitutional right to public education, and that immigration enforcement near schools is measurably undermining that right through documented increases in absenteeism and psychological trauma. They contend that schools currently lack the mental health infrastructure and trained personnel to respond to enforcement-related crises, and that the bill's targeted, competitive grant structure ensures funds reach the communities with the greatest demonstrated need, producing measurable educational stability outcomes.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill effectively uses federal education funds to help families resist or navigate around lawful immigration enforcement, blurring the line between educational support and immigration policy advocacy. They contend that the "Know Your Rights" services and deportation defense referrals funded under the bill go beyond the educational mission of schools and that Congress should not use the Spending Clause to create a parallel infrastructure that complicates federal immigration law enforcement — a function assigned to the executive branch under Article II.
Constitutional context
The bill's grant structure rests on the Spending Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 1), which permits Congress to attach conditions to federal education funds, subject to the five-part test in South Dakota v. Dole (1987). The bill also invokes Plyler v. Doe (1982), which held that states may not deny public education to unauthorized immigrant children under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The bill's prohibition on collecting or disclosing immigration status data intersects with FERPA student privacy protections.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (Secretary of Education) gains discretionary authority to award and renew competitive grants and set selection criteria; Congress retains oversight through the annual appropriations process, and grantees are subject to federal civil rights and privacy compliance requirements.
Historical precedent
Title III of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (as reauthorized by the Every Student Succeeds Act, 2015) similarly provides federal grants to support English learners and immigrant students in public schools, though it does not specifically address immigration enforcement impacts.