On the morning of Aug. 30 , 2019 , as Hurricane Dorian was bearing down on Florida 's Treasure Coast , Jamie Seiler was at the hospital where she worked , preparing for the storm 's approach . Then her cellphone rang .\nOn the other end was the principal of her son 's school . The principal said her son had been escorted out of the school in handcuffs and was being taken to a psychiatric hospital in a police car .\nGetting such a call is a nightmare for any parent , but Seiler 's son had n't threatened to shoot up the school or commit suicide . He had several developmental disorders and had thrown a tantrum . He was just 9 years old .\n`` I flipped out , I broke down , '' Seiler says . She sat in her boss 's office , `` hysterical to the point they did n't think that I would be able to drive . ''\nA professional therapist would later tell Seiler that a school resource officer ( SRO ) had tackled her autistic 80-pound son while he was sitting on a bench—a use of force that the therapist , who was in the room at the time , said was unnecessary . One teacher who was present cried , according to an incident report filed by the therapist .\nSeiler 's son Evan is only one of thousands of small children who are led out of schools in handcuffs every year around the country . Juvenile arrests in Florida have been steadily declining over the last decade , as they have been more generally across the U.S. , but for the next few years the state will be a bellwether for school safety and juvenile justice .\nAfter the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland , Florida , the state embarked on an aggressive plan to `` harden '' its schools against shooting threats , including putting at least one SRO or armed guardian in every K-12 school in the state . However , civil liberties groups , disability rights advocates , and lawyers for parents say the state overcorrected , and that students , especially minorities and those with disabilities , are now bearing the brunt of new zero tolerance policies and heavy-handed discipline . As arrests of small children make national headlines , and legislators and parents debate how far is too far when it comes to school safety , Florida 's schools have become a high-stakes experiment in policing .\nAmid a nationwide debate on law enforcement violence following the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor , school resource officers have flown somewhat under the radar . But it 's clear that education officials are already rethinking police presence in classrooms : In Minneapolis , where Floyd was killed after an officer pressed a knee into his neck for nearly nine minutes , the school board recently voted in favor of a resolution ending a $ 1 million partnership with city police . Mayor Ted Wheeler of Portland , Oregon , announced last week that he would disband the city 's school resource officers , putting a million dollars from the SRO budget toward counselors , social workers , and `` culturally specific partnerships . '' Other states and cities appear to be considering similar measures .\nIn Florida , the state chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union ( ACLU ) warned in a report last June that the new laws could reverse years of progress in reducing school arrests . While juvenile arrests both in and out of Florida schools continued to fall in the 2017–2018 fiscal year , according to state law enforcement data , `` the percentage of youth arrests for misdemeanors that occurred at schools , rather than in the community , increased to 20 % , the first increase in a decade , '' the Florida ACLU wrote .\nMeanwhile , attorneys , disability rights advocates , and media investigations say that there 's been a spike in the use of involuntary psychiatric commitments against kids like Evan , thanks to an existing Florida mental health law that gives police authority to temporarily lock up both children and adults against their will . Shahar Pasch is a Florida attorney who represents children with disabilities and their parents , including Seiler .\n`` Since Parkland , it 's gone through the roof , '' Pasch says . `` I had another young , elementary-aged kid who was handcuffed and hobbled , which means his legs were tied together . ''\nLast year , an SRO in Orlando , Florida sparked public outrage after he arrested a 6-year-old girl , Kaia Rolle , for misdemeanor battery . A small child , handcuffed and arrested , booked and given a mugshot ? The arrest made national news and led to the officer 's firing . It was n't an isolated incident , though . Stories like that pop up every few years . In 2006 , it was a St. Petersburg 5-year-old who was handcuffed and arrested in school .\nABC News reported that , according to FBI crime data , 30,467 children under the age of 10 were arrested in the United States between 2013 and 2018 . During the same period , 266,000 children between the ages of 10 and 12 were arrested .\nThe good news is that the rate of juvenile arrests in the U.S. has dropped significantly since its peak in 1996 , from roughly 8,500 arrests per 100,000 individuals between the ages of 10 and 17 to 2,400 in 2016 . This mirrors the nationwide trend of declining crime throughout the 2000s and 2010s .\nBut in most places , there is no minimum age at which a child can be arrested and charged with a crime—34 states have no lower age limit for delinquency , while 11 states place the floor at 10 years old .\nAccording to data from the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice , Florida police arrested 2,781 children between the ages of 5 and 12 in fiscal year 2018–2019 , the latest year for which data are available . The youngest was a 5-year-old Hispanic boy . He was charged by the Osceola County Sheriff 's Office with felony aggravated assault . The data were anonymized , though , and ███ could not obtain more information about the case from the sheriff 's office .\nIn an effort to see how common allegations of excessive force like Seiler 's are against the approximately 1,800 SROs in Florida , and whether those complaints are substantiated by police departments , ███ filed public records requests for a decade 's worth of disciplinary records against SROs in numerous Florida counties , including Palm Beach .\nIn most cases , sheriff 's departments charged several hundred dollars for the records . However , the Palm Beach Public School District responded with an estimated fee invoice for $ 20,060 to complete the request .\nOther large agencies , like the Broward Sheriff 's Office and the Orlando Police Department , rejected the requests because they do n't track SROs separately in their systems .\nPasco County , however , a rural-suburban county of about 550,000 people north of Tampa Bay , is illustrative of some of the concerns that civil liberties groups have about expanding police presence in schools .\nIn December , a Pasco deputy threatened to shoot a high school student who was attempting to leave the campus in his car . The deputy and a school staffer had blocked the student from leaving , leading to a long standoff between both parties .\n`` You 're gon na get shot you come another fucking foot closer to me , '' the deputy says at one point as the student tries to maneuver around him . `` You run into me , you 'll get fucking shot . ''\nThe student 's mother , who obtained body camera footage of the exchange , said her son had an orthodontist appointment that she 'd notified the school of weeks in advance .\nLast October , an SRO in the county was fired after he accidentally fired his gun in a middle school cafeteria . According to Pasco Sheriff 's Office disciplinary records , `` Video surveillance captured him mishandling his agency issued firearm , which caused an accidental discharge . The projective entered and exited his uniform pants leg and struck the wall behind him ; bullet fragments were located on the ground adjacent to the lunch line where students were standing at the time of the discharge . ''\nThe Pasco Sheriff 's Office terminated another SRO , Milton Arroyo , in 2017 after an investigation found he was sending inappropriate text messages to several female students at the high school he patrolled . He was technically fired for a different offense , however : misusing a Florida state law enforcement database to search for confidential information on women he was interested in .\nLocal news outlets and the public did n't know , though , that several months before Arroyo was fired , the Pasco Sheriff 's Office reprimanded him after he was caught on camera flipping someone off in the school cafeteria . Several parents filed a complaint against him , according to a disciplinary report .\nThe office reprimanded another Pasco SRO in 2019 after he physically restrained a student but failed to turn on his body camera or file an incident report .\n███ also obtained disciplinary records from Miami-Dade Schools Police Department . In 2014 , officer Juan Cecchinelli was removed from his position after he sent sexually explicit texts to a teenage girl at the school he policed . An internal affairs summary notes that , during the department 's investigation , Cecchinelli `` refused to answer why he had sex toys in his department assigned vehicle . ''\nOther incidents have popped up around the state . In February , a Miami-Dade Schools officer was caught on camera cursing at and threatening to shoot high school students . She has been placed on administrative leave while the department investigates .\nLast November , an Orange County SRO was fired after video emerged of him pulling a middle school student 's hair . That same month , a Broward County sheriff 's deputy was arrested and charged with child abuse after video showed him body-slamming a 15-year-old girl at a school for children with special needs .\nIn March 2019 , Duval County School Police ( DCSP ) fired an SRO after video showed him grabbing a high school girl by the neck and throwing her to the ground . According to public records obtained by ███ , three other DCSP members resigned in 2019 for `` unbecoming conduct , '' `` failure to write a report , '' and `` actions or which may bring the DCSP into disrepute or ridicule . '' One of them pointed a fake gun at a student with special needs . Three other DCSP members resigned in 2018 after one pawned his service weapon and the other two failed to report it .\nIt 's notable that in most of these incidents the officers were fired . Departments appear to have little stomach for such cases .\nAlthough the Florida Department of Law Enforcement keeps records on decertified police officers , it does not track officers by role , so it 's unknown how many SROs have had their law enforcement license revoked over the years . However , using a USA Today database of decertified police officers , ███ identified 18 officers from Florida departments that exclusively police schools , such as the Miami-Dade Schools Police . They were decertified for offenses including cocaine possession , witness-dissuading , perjury , aggravated assault , and sexual harassment . In 2007 , a Palm Beach School District police officer was arrested and decertified for allegedly handcuffing and sexually assaulting a woman .\n`` If You 're Going To Act Like a Fool , I 'm Going To Treat You Like a Fool . ''\nIn many ways , Evan is a typical 9-year-old boy . He likes riding his BMX bike , swimming , and surfing , and he has a menagerie of pets—four cats , a guinea pig , and three fish . Seiler says that if you passed her son on the street , the only thing you would notice about him would be his bright red hair .\nBut Evan is also on the high-functioning end of the autism spectrum . He 's been diagnosed with Asperger 's syndrome , attention deficit hyperactivity disorder ( ADHD ) , and dyslexia .\nEvan attended Acreage Pines Elementary School , a public school in Palm Beach County , where he was in a classroom specifically for children with autism . Seiler also paid a private applied behavior analysis ( ABA ) therapist to work with Evan 20 hours a week , including at school .\nOn August 30 of last year , Evan had a meltdown at school . He began throwing items and ripping up his schoolwork .\nJennifer Borr , a South Florida ABA specialist , says ABA therapists work to reinforce good behavior and decision making skills with young children .\nBorr says children on the autism spectrum often have trouble communicating and struggle with what 's called `` executive function skills '' —things like regulating emotions and dealing with changes in routines . They 're also often sensitive to sensory stimuli like noises , lights , and touch .\nThis combination can lead to behavior seen as aggressive or dangerous by others , such as `` stimming '' —repetitive movements like banging their head—or acting out and hitting other people . However , Sam Crane , legal director for the Autistic Self Advocacy Network , says the behavior , especially when physical boundaries are broached , is perfectly logical from the student 's point of view .\n`` A student might try to leave a classroom if it 's overstimulating , '' she says . `` The teacher might block them . The student panics and tries to push past the teacher , and then that 's seen as an assault or something along those lines . ''\nEvan 's ABA therapist took him outside the classroom , and eventually to the office , where the therapist and the school behavior counselor tried to calm him down .\nIn an internal company report filed after the incident , the therapist wrote that Evan `` punched me in the chest and kicked me in the shin , threw chairs , [ and ] then sat down on green couch after [ being ] placed in a 'bear hug . ' ''\nAt this point , Evan was sitting on a couch , and his tantrum was waning , according to the therapist . `` Heavy breathing is an indicator of cooling down , '' the report notes . School administrators were discussing filing a report on Evan 's physical outburst toward the therapist when things abruptly escalated .\nAccording to the ABA therapist 's report , an SRO `` tackled Evan to the ground and stated , 'If you are going to act like a fool I am going to treat you like a fool ' and then said 'you are coming with me ' while holding handcuffs , trying to place them around Evan 's wrists . ''\nThe incident report says a teacher in the room `` started to cry when Evan was brought to the ground by the officer , and she started to cover her face by holding a piece of paper while stating ' I do n't understand why they are doing this . ' ''\nPalm Beach County School District policies , as laid out in a `` Baker Act decision tree protocol , '' require that a student having a mental health crisis `` remains in crisis and continues to exhibit behaviors which potentially meet Baker Act criteria '' before escalating the situation further .\n`` I feel that the way the officer dealt with this situation was unnecessary because the tantrum behavior had ceased and was under control , '' the therapist concluded .\nFlorida law enforcement arrested 8,153 students at K-12 schools in the 2018–2019 school year , according to state data , a small increase over the previous year .\nAlthough Evan was led out of school in handcuffs and placed in the back of a police cruiser , his case would not appear in any state data on juvenile arrests , because rather than arrest him , the SRO attempted to involuntarily commit him to a hospital for psychiatric evaluation .\nEvan was detained under the Florida Health Act of 1971 , commonly called the Baker Act . Under the law , a judge , doctor , or police officer can commit someone to an involuntary psychiatric evaluation for up to 72 hours .\nUse of the Baker Act is common enough that , over the decades , the name has also become a verb—as in , to Baker Act someone , or get Baker Acted . Disability rights advocates allege use of the Baker Act against children has spiked since the Parkland shooting .\n`` We noticed that we 're getting a lot more calls from families of children who 've been Baker Acted at school , '' says Ann Siegel , an attorney with Disability Rights Florida .\nSiegel and other advocates also say that , crucially , parents are n't being given the opportunity to intervene before their children are removed from school .\n`` The parent is not called , '' Siegel says . `` If you look at the Baker Act statute , there 's a provision in there where you 're supposed to see if family intervention is a possibility . ''\nThe Baker Act statute authorizes police to commit someone when their mental state makes them a threat to themselves or others . It also includes the clause , `` and it is not apparent that such harm may be avoided through the help of willing family members or friends or the provision of other services . ''\nPalm Beach County School District 's protocols also recommend that schools `` make every effort to include the parents/guardians in all phases of the process . ''\nBut Seiler says she was n't contacted by Evan 's school until her son was already en route to a hospital . When the SRO finally called her , Seiler says he initially would n't say where he was taking her son and told her not to come , since she would n't be able to see him anyway .\nWhen Florida resident William Terry 's autistic 11-year-old son was Baker Acted after hitting a teacher at Boca Raton Community Middle School while having a meltdown , Terry says his wife showed up at the school minutes after she was called but was not allowed to see her child .\n`` My wife , as you can imagine with a special needs kid , has got a very special bond with him , and she can usually calm him down , '' Terry says . `` All of his teachers know that , but they separated her from him . ''\nInstead , Terry 's son was handcuffed , sent to a hospital , and held for psychiatric evaluation for the full 72 hours allowed under the law . Terry says he and his wife were only allowed to visit their son for an hour a day during that time .\nIn March , school officials at Belcher Elementary School in Clearwater , Florida , called Tyeisha Harmon to tell her that her 7-year-old son , who has ADHD and a mental health disorder , was having a meltdown . He 'd walked out into the parking lot after being moved into a new classroom—a change in routine that upset him .\n`` It took me about 20 minutes to get there , '' Harmon says . `` When I got there , I asked for my son , and they told me that he had been taken away about 15 minutes prior . ''\nHarmon says the SRO called her while she was en route to the hospital . When Harmon asked the officer why she 'd Baker Acted the boy , the officer said that he had scratched her , and that her only options were to either charge him with a crime or commit him .\nHarmon says her son was handcuffed so tightly that it left marks on his wrists that were still visible when she got him out of the psychiatric hospital four hours later .\n`` Part of the Baker Act says that a person has to be a danger to himself and others , '' Harmon says . `` My son was in a parking lot with a police officer and adults . What harm could he really do to call for a Baker Act ? ''\nAs for the rise in the number of Baker Act commitments , data back up what lawyers and advocates are seeing anecdotally . A Tampa Bay Times investigation found that children had been removed from Tampa-area schools via the Baker Act more than 7,500 times over the past seven years . A database built by the Times showed that the rate of commitments for local students rose 35 percent in just the last five years . Overall , the investigation found `` glaring weaknesses in the system—from a lack of parental consent , to students being wrongly committed , to facilities that put students in harm 's way . ''\nThe Times found cases like a sixth grader who was Baker Acted for joking to his friends , `` Oh look , ropes . Time to hang myself . '' Or a 13-year-old girl who was Baker Acted by an SRO for telling her friend she had argued with her mother and wanted to throw herself off the school bus .\nIn February , a 6-year-old girl in Duval County was Baker Acted after allegedly destroying school property and attacking staff . The girl has been previously diagnosed with a disruptive mood disorder . Her family claims she was injected with the antipsychotic drug Thorazine while committed .\nA similar investigation last year by the Ft. Myers News-Press reported that there were a record 32,763 Baker Act commitments of children in 2017 . About a quarter of those were removals from schools , according to a Florida Department of Children and Families report .\nThe data are incomplete , though . Unlike juvenile arrests , it 's unknown exactly how many Florida children are committed through the Baker Act because of disturbances at schools . `` The problem with [ the ] Baker Act is the schools do n't have to report those numbers , '' Seigel says . `` They do n't even keep track of them . ''\nA Florida state legislator introduced a bill in January that would require schools to accurately report Baker Act commitments and require parents to be notified prior to a child 's removal .\nThe data that are available , though , suggest that while school arrests in Florida have been trending down , administrators and law enforcement are in many cases just substituting one mechanism for removing a child from school for another .\n`` Autistic kids are facing widespread problems with schools that are trying to find ways to segregate them and deny them the educational services that they 're entitled to , '' says Crane .\nSeiler finally arrived at the Palm Beach hospital where Evan had been taken . She says he was sitting quietly and repeating , `` I want to go home . ''\nSeiler says a psychiatrist came and talked to Evan for a few minutes about cars—another of Evan 's interests—and concluded that he was just having a bad day . Evan was released back to his mother , and Seiler was charged a $ 250 copay for the involuntary emergency room visit .\nTerry says he received a hospital bill for $ 5,000 for his son 's three-day commitment .\nWhy a police officer would tackle and handcuff a third grader is one question . Another question is why the officer was in the school in the first place .\nPolice have been in American schools since the 1950s , but never with the frequency that they are now . Armed police officers were in just 1 percent of public schools in the 1970s , according to The Trace , a nonprofit newsroom that covers firearms . Federal data show that by the 2015–16 school year they were in 43 percent of all public schools and 71 percent of high schools .\nNational Association of School Resource Officers ( NASRO ) executive director Mo Canady says being an SRO is `` the most unique assignment in law enforcement . ''\n`` Officers that are going to be assigned in this particular field have got to be carefully selected , '' Canady says . `` It 's not for every officer . As a matter of fact , I might argue it 's not for most officers . ''\nThe number of SROs in Florida has dramatically increased over the past two years , following the passage of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act in 2018 .\nThe new law requires at least one police officer or armed guardian in every public elementary , middle , and high school in Florida . Most districts have opted for police , which has led to an expensive hiring rush for qualified officers in school districts across the state .\nThere are no national certification requirements for SROs . Standards vary from state to state , although NASRO offers best practices and training . Several states , such as Pennsylvania , require prospective officers to go through NASRO 's training .\nIn Florida , potential SROs are required to undergo a criminal background check , drug testing , and a psychological evaluation , in addition to being a state-certified law enforcement officer . The state 's attorney general 's office and several other organizations offer SRO training classes , starting at a basic 40-hour course , but there is no statute or state-level rule regarding SRO certification . The level of required training is left to individual police departments .\nThe police killing of George Floyd in Minnesota has intensified scrutiny of police hiring and qualification standards , and some districts are reconsidering their use of SROs entirely . HuffPost reported that , in addition to the Minneapolis school board severing its relationship with the city 's police department , a school board member in Denver plans on introducing a similar resolution , and officials are considering similar plans in `` Arizona , North Carolina , Minnesota , Wisconsin , Washington , Oregon , New York , and Illinois . '' A HuffPost investigation last year found that children have been tasered by SROs in at least 143 incidents since 2011 .\nSROs do n't write the laws , though . Throughout the 1980s and '90s , zero tolerance policies spread through schools across the country—first in response to drugs , then mass shootings—and Florida passed some of the harshest laws in the country .\nAfter the passage of the federal Gun-Free School Act of 1994 , Florida required all school districts to enforce zero tolerance policies for students who bring weapons to school , requiring students who violate the policy to be expelled for at least a year or referred to law enforcement . In 2000 , the state legislature passed another package of juvenile justice bills , known as the `` tough love '' plan , that further reinforced this punitive model . School districts began to expand the scope of their zero tolerance policies beyond drugs and guns to petty misbehavior . While juvenile arrest rates in general were falling in the state—mirroring a nationwide drop—there were persistent and troubling racial disparities in school discipline and arrests , not to mention kids being charged with battery for shooting spitballs , or being expelled for bringing nail clippers to school , or dying at a military-style juvenile boot camp .\nAfter a decade , Florida lawmakers reconsidered the wisdom of using the criminal justice system to dispense love . In 2009 , the state legislature loosened those zero tolerance policies , amending the statutes to clarify that they `` are not intended to be rigorously applied to petty acts of misconduct and misdemeanors , including , but not limited to , minor fights or disturbances . '' School districts also began softening their disciplinary practices as backlash against the so-called school-to-prison pipeline grew .\nNow the pendulum has swung back the other way again . Last year , as part of a bill codifying the recommendations of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Commission , Florida lawmakers edited the statute yet again to remove the prohibition on using zero tolerance policies to police misdemeanors and minor disturbances . The Orlando Sentinel reported that Osceola County school officials now report all minor fights to police as a result of the changes .\nCivil liberties groups argue the new laws and the safety commission 's recommendations threaten to bring back the bad days of zero tolerance , ushering in unproven safety policies and ignoring funding for things like more mental health services .\n`` We 've heard , for instance , that down in Miami-Dade County there are over a dozen officers in the same school , while there 's only one or two mental health care providers , '' says Bacardi Jackson , managing attorney for children 's rights at the Southern Poverty Law Center ( SPLC ) , a nonprofit legal advocacy and civil rights organization .\nJackson says her organization put together a focus group of young women from about 10 different Miami-Dade high schools to talk about their experience with police on campus .\n`` It was very , very troubling , '' she says . `` A number of the girls expressed how powerless they felt when they felt that they had been mistreated by an SRO . When someone made an inappropriate comment , when someone looked at them in a way that made them feel very uncomfortable , they did not believe they had the ability to report that without having some severe consequences . ''\nThe SPLC released a report in October arguing the commission 's recommendations `` will place students at greater risk of getting shot and/or wrongfully arrested ; put their privacy and liberty in jeopardy ; strip them of civil rights ; create school environments that are more tense , anxiety-provoking and traumatic ; breed distrust between students and faculty ; and absorb funds that could be used on programs that are actually shown to make schools safer for all students . ''\nCanady calls arguments that more SROs will necessarily result in more arrests `` hogwash . ''\n`` NASRO stands firmly on this , '' he says . `` Every school in this country could greatly benefit from a carefully selected , specifically trained SRO . ''\nIn fact , Canady argues that well-trained SRO with a good relationship among students and staff act as `` filters '' that reduce the number of arrests .\n`` They are the ones who have built relationships in that school , and they recognize they have a lot of other resources around them , '' Canady says . `` Instead of having to arrest everybody for misdemeanors like disorderly conduct , there would be that relationship where the SRO can step back and allow the school to take action . That is by and large what good SROs do . ''\nOne thing Canady and the SPLC do agree on , however , are zero tolerance policies .\n`` I 've never been a fan of them because what they do , at best , is remove discretion for good administrators and for good law enforcement officers , '' he says . `` I ca n't imagine being able to be productive as a law enforcement officer if I 'm always faced with zero tolerance . ''\nWhile schools may voluntarily or involuntarily report misbehavior to police , Florida police do have discretion to issue civil citations to juveniles for first-time misdemeanor offenses . A civil citation funnels the case into diversion programs rather than the local prosecutor 's office . Florida is a national leader in pre-arrest diversion for youths .\nBut there is no uniformity . A December report from the Caruthers Institute found that , while police issued civil citations in 68 percent of juvenile cases involving first-time misdemeanors statewide—keeping thousands of kids out of the juvenile justice system—some counties used citations in less than half of eligible cases . Others , like Miami-Dade and Pinellas counties , issue civil citations to students in more than 90 percent of cases . The report says this results in `` unequal justice by geography . ''\nAn investigation by the Orlando Sentinel also reported wide racial disparities in school arrests and citations . For example , the newspaper found that black students in Seminole County made up 15 percent of the student population , but they represented 80 percent of the school-related disorderly conduct incidents involving first-time offenders and 41 percent of misdemeanor assaults and batteries .\nAnd it found that the trend of declining in-school arrests had reversed in several central Florida counties , with Lake County posting a five-year high for school-related arrests in the 2018–2019 school year .\nNo police department or school wants to be accused of not doing enough to prevent a mass shooting , especially after Parkland .\nIn February , school officials in Seminole County subjected a 5-year-old boy to a threat assessment after he allegedly told a classmate , `` I wish someone killed you . '' Although they determined the threat was n't credible , the incident will stay in the county 's threat assessment database for 25 years .\nLast October , a police officer in Overland Park , Missouri , handcuffed and arrested an eighth grader who had formed her fingers into a pretend gun and pointed them at her classmates . Overland Park 's police chief put it bluntly to The Kansas City Star : `` I 'll take the heat all day long for arresting a 13-year-old . I 'm not willing to take the heat for not preventing a school tragedy . ''\nThe Florida Sheriffs Association and the Florida Association of School Resource Officers did not respond to requests for comment for this story .\nIn March , 6-year-old Kaia Rolle , whose arrest at school sparked national outrage , watched from the gallery of the Florida House of Representatives as lawmakers unanimously passed legislation inspired by her ordeal .\nThe law would n't have banned the arrests of small children , though . Instead , it would have required police departments to create policies surrounding arrests of children under 10 . The legislation died in the state Senate anyway .\n`` I 'm extremely disappointed , '' Rolle 's grandmother , Meralyn Kirkland , told the Orlando Sentinel . `` My family went through so much when Kaia was arrested…and we 're still going through it . One of the biggest passions for me right now is seeing that no other family , no other child goes through what Kaia 's going through and what we 're going through . ''\nToday 's school discipline often shifts wildly from crisis to crisis . A more tenable solution would be to strike a balance that keeps schools safe without militarizing them . Schools should stop treating misbehavior that used to warrant a trip to the principal 's office like criminal offenses . Borderline cases should n't be punished out of fear or absurd zero tolerance policies .\nAnd the effects of any such changes should be rigorously tracked , with an eye on how they are used on the most vulnerable students .\nNeither Evan nor Terry 's son returned to their schools after they were Baker Acted . Both started sleeping in their parents ' beds again . Terry 's son is homeschooled now . Evan attends a private school , where his mother says he is doing well .\n`` He does n't talk about a whole lot of things , so we do n't really know what he 's carrying in there in his brain , '' Seiler says . `` We 'll get past this , but this should never have happened . ''\nSeiler filed a complaint against the SRO who allegedly tackled Evan . According to Seiler 's attorney , Palm Beach Schools Police Department launched an internal affairs investigation into the incident , but Seiler is still waiting for the results .\nTerry says the teacher pressed assault charges against his son , who received a deferred adjudication in youth court , meaning the case will be dismissed if his son stays out of trouble for a certain amount of time .\nHarmon has retained a lawyer and is planning to sue .\nSeiler 's lawyer says that children with disabilities who are Baker Acted often have nightmares and regress in terms of behavior , not to mention the blow they take to their perception of themselves .\n`` When you are 9 years old and you 've been told all your life that police officers arrest the bad people , and suddenly you find yourself in the back of a police car for behavior that you could n't control because you 're a child with a disability , what do you think about yourself now ? ''\nPalm Beach Schools Police Department did not respond to a request for comment for this story . The principal of Acreage Pines Elementary directed a request for comment to Palm Beach School District 's director of communications , who declined to comment , citing federal privacy laws for students .\nBoth Seiler and Terry struggled with the decision to share their stories and attach their names to them , but in the end , they both did it for the same ███ .\n`` The real ███ I picked up the call is I said , if my experience can help just one family , it 'd be worth it , '' Terry says . `` So that 's my hope . ''\n`` It 's appalling , just appalling that this stuff goes on and no one seems to care , '' Seiler says . `` These kids are falling through the cracks . If this prevents any other kid and family from going through this , then yeah , that 's worth it . ''


Previewing yet another item on his 2015 State of the Union Friday , President Obama announced a new plan to make community college tuition `` free . ''\n`` Today I 'm announcing an ambitious new plan to bring down the cost of community college tuition in America , '' Obama said . `` I wan na bring it down to zero . I wan na make it free . ''\nObama may have spoken for over half-an-hour in Knoxville , Tennessee , where he was joined by both Sens . Bob Corker ( R-TN ) and Lamar Alexander ( R-TN ) , but he left out a few details about his new program :\nObama may have sold his plan as `` free '' college tuition , but it is n't free to students and it definitely is n't free to taxpayers . First , Obama 's plan will only cover `` three-qarters of the average cost of community college . '' States are expected to pick up the tab for the remaining 25 percent . But even then , the program will only cover the `` average cost '' of tuition . Many students who go to schools with higher tuitions will still be on the hook for money .\nSecond , nothing is ever free for taxpayers . On Air Force One today , Deputy Press Secretary Eric Schultz confirmed that the program will cost at least $ 60 billion over ten years .\n`` There are no free rides in America , '' Obama insisted today . And he 's right . Nothing is ever really free . `` Colleges would to do their part by offering high quality academics and helping students actually graduate , '' Obama continued . `` States would have to do their part to . This is n't a blank check . It is not a free lunch . ''\nAll this accountability may sound great in a political speech , but in real life what it all translates to is tons of paperwork and red tape for states and schools . If you loved the federalization of elementary education through No Child Left Behind , and all the millions of hours of paperwork that came with it , then you 'll love Obama 's plan to federalize community colleges .\n3 ) Too Many High School Students Are n't Prepared For Community College\nToo many high schools are already failing to prepare their graduates for college and making community college as universal as high school , which is what Obama said the goal of his new plan was , would only make the situation worse .\nA 2004 study found that not only did 68 percent of community college students take at least one remedial course , but of those that did take remedial courses , they had to take 2.9 of them . All Obama 's plan would really do is create nationally funded 6-year high schools .\nIf community colleges had a strong track record of taking unprepared or financially strained students through graduation and onto four-year institutions , then maybe Obama 's plan might begin to make some sense . But the simple fact is that they do n't .\nLess than 20 percent of first-time , full-time community college students complete their two-year degrees in three years . And of the only 20 percent of community college students who do transfer to four-year institutions , only 72 percent of them will finish or still be in school after another four years .\nNo government spending program exists in a vacuum . If the government subsidizes the price of a service , then the price of that service will go up . Which is exactly what has happened to the price of four-year college tuition since the federal government has been ramping up their grant and loan-guarantee spending .\nNot only will government subsidized tuition at public community colleges drive up the price of tuition at those colleges , but it will also crowd out private sector solutions . The Manhattan Institute 's Judah Bellin explains :


“ The 360 ” shows you diverse perspectives on the day ’ s top stories and debates .\nIn March , millions of college students saw their worlds upended by the coronavirus pandemic . Fears of spreading the virus forced America ’ s universities to hastily shut down in-person instruction and transition to an ad hoc system of distance learning . With the spring semester ending for many , all eyes have shifted to whether colleges will welcome students back to their campuses in the fall .\nThere are more than 4,000 higher-education institutions in the U.S. Each is developing its own plans for the fall semester . It ’ s impossible to know what the state of the pandemic will be in August and September , when the school year typically starts . With students , parents and faculty members eager to know what the coming semester will look like , schools don ’ t have the luxury of waiting a couple of months to make their decisions .\nAbout two-thirds of colleges are planning for in-person instruction in the fall , according to a database kept by the Chronicle of Higher Education . That doesn ’ t mean things will be back to normal . A return to school could mean staggered class schedules , no large lectures , and a variety of public health measures interwoven into campus life . Several schools , including the University of South Carolina and Notre Dame , have adjusted the academic calendar so the fall semester will end before Thanksgiving , possibly ahead of an expected winter resurgence on the virus .\nOther universities have decided to keep campuses closed in the fall . The California State University system , the nation ’ s largest collection of colleges , will conduct its semester entirely online . Many of the country ’ s most prestigious private universities are considering a range of scenarios that may include a hybrid of online and in-person instruction .\nThe idea of bringing thousands of students and faculty together on college campuses in the fall has raised significant concern among some epidemiologists . Universities are particularly problematic when it comes to transmission of viruses because of the number of people who filter in and out on a daily basis and the social lives of many college students , some argue . If the virus does prove to be seasonal , low case counts over the summer could provide a false sense of security that may lead to a devastating outbreak if another wave hits near the end of the year .\nDistance learning will likely be much more worthwhile in the fall , others say , after schools have had several months to build their programs to replace the hastily thrown together plans they rolled out in March .\nThough they acknowledge the potential risks , advocates for bringing students back say a variety of steps can be taken to limit virus transmission . Even a significantly modified version of campus life may be preferable to distance learning , which many students and faculty members have expressed dissatisfaction with . The shift to online education has led many students to consider taking a year off — and educators fear some may never come back .\nFor some colleges , the decision may be largely financial . Some schools could permanently close if forced to go without income from tuition , events , housing and other on-campus revenue streams for another semester .\nOthers say there is not a one-size-fits-all policy that could be applied to the country ’ s incredibly diverse collection of colleges . The decision to open campus may depend on location , nature of the student body , university resources , local laws and a long list of other factors .\nMost schools that are planning to hold in-person classes in the fall are simultaneously developing backup plans in case coronavirus cases don ’ t drop over the next few months . The nation 's ability to contain the pandemic and monitor future outbreaks will likely play a major role in whether those contingencies prove necessary .\nThe benefits of in-person education outweigh the risks if the right protocols are in place\n“ Colleges and universities have a lot of work to do if they want to welcome students back on campus this fall . But in-person instruction , and the benefits that accompany student life in institutions across the United States , are essential parts of the higher-learning experience . It ’ s an effort well worth making. ” — Lanhee J. Chen and Vanila M. Singh , Washington Post


The Senate is planning to vote Wednesday on a plan to bring interest rates on subsidized federal student loans back down to 3.4 percent for one more year . The rate doubled on July 1 when the chamber failed to agree on a plan .\nWhile the Senate prepares to take the issue back up , college students are left staring at several competing proposals .\nThis fight has been all about what 's best for those students . To make that point , House Republicans recently gathered more than 100 of them to sweat and squint under the summer sun for a press conference on the Capitol steps . The guys were wrapped in wool suits and ties — most of them congressional interns plucked from offices just that afternoon .\nOne of them was Wes Hodgin , who said he kept thinking one thing while he waited 45 minutes for House leaders to arrive : Do not faint .\n`` I 'm just going to try to stand out here , sweat all I can , and just not faint today , '' he said .\nHodgin 's going to be a junior at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill this fall . He has student loans , but not the subsidized kind , so the rate doubling on July 1 technically did n't affect him .\nNevertheless , House Republicans had one central message : The Senate still has n't passed a student loan plan .\n`` They 've been more involved in internal bickering rather than actually addressing the issue , '' said Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers , chairwoman of the House Republican Conference . `` And the students that are surrounded with us today — they 're all suffering because of it . ''\nWell , not quite yet . Most student loans are issued in August and September — a couple of weeks before classes begin — so as long as a deal goes through before then , the only students affected are the small group who borrowed money for summer school , and anything the Senate passes will likely retroactively apply to them anyway .\nThe holdup now in the Senate is where exactly to set interest rates and whether there should be a cap on those rates . The House plan has a cap . President Obama 's plan does n't . But Senate Democrats insist on a cap . So do student advocates , like Rory O'Sullivan of Young Invincibles .\n`` We do n't believe that the federal government should be charging students higher interest rates to pay down the federal deficit , '' O'Sullivan says . `` In that case , you 're essentially trading government debt for student debt . ''\nBut there 's a catch with a cap : It 's expensive . You have to factor in the added cost if market rates exceed that cap one day . And if you want to make sure the federal student loan plan is budget-neutral , you 'll have to set student loan rates a little higher .\nChris Lindstrom of the U.S. Public Interest Research Group compares the federal student loan program to a balloon filled with air . `` If you squeeze the balloon in one part to make it thinner , it expands and gets fatter in another part of the balloon , '' Lindstrom explains . `` It 's a zero-sum game . You 're not putting any air into it . ''\nNo lawmaker wants to be accused of setting rates too high . But every long-term proposal pegs rates to the 10-year Treasury note . So that means the rates under almost all of those plans is expected to exceed 6.8 percent before 10 years , based on projections from the Congressional Budget Office . That 6.8 percent figure is what the rate for subsidized loans became after rates doubled on July 1 .\nAs for what proposal offers the lowest interest rate — whether it 's the House plan , the president 's plan , or one of the Senate proposals — the differences come down to 1 or 2 percentage points at most .\nJason Delisle of the New America Foundation says it makes sense to care about those percentage points when you 're talking about home mortgage rates , `` but a home mortgage is $ 200,000 , $ 300,000 , $ 400,000 . So moving the interest rate a little bit lower makes a big difference in your monthly payment . That 's not so on a $ 20,000 student loan .\nDelisle says in that case , you 're talking about a difference of $ 10 , maybe $ 20 , a month . He says what people are really worried about is how unaffordable college is — and how much you actually have to borrow in the first place has a lot more to do with that problem than what your interest rate is .


Mr. Loeb hosted a fund-raiser for Mr. Cuomo this month at his home in East Hampton , N.Y . He and his wife have contributed $ 139,367 to Mr. Cuomo over the past five years , according to New York State Board of Elections records . In the same period , Mr. Jones and his wife have contributed $ 75,000 , and another board member , Carl C. Icahn , has contributed $ 50,000 to the governor .\nMr. Klein , who is now the chief executive of Amplify , Rupert Murdoch ’ s education-technology company , is still a board member of StudentsFirstNY . Neither he nor most of the group ’ s major donors would comment on their support , though Mr. Jones said in a statement , “ Maintaining the status quo is unacceptable , and that ’ s why StudentsFirstNY and others are fighting for reforms that can give parents more choices , ensure that only the best teachers are in the classroom and make sure that the best interests of the children in the system are put first . ”\nMaking teacher evaluations more dependent on test scores , reforming tenure and adding charter schools in the city were all priorities of StudentsFirstNY and became significant pieces of the governor ’ s agenda for the 2015 legislative session , which he announced in his State of the State speech on Jan. 21 .\nEmails obtained through the Freedom of Information Law , as well as interviews , show that Mr. Cuomo and his senior education advisers were in close touch , by email and telephone , with Ms. Sedlis and her board members in the weeks after the governor ’ s re-election last November .\nOn Dec. 9 , for example , the governor met with Ms. Sedlis and several of her board members at the Harvard Club to discuss education policy issues , a spokesman for StudentsFirstNY said .\n“ Improving the state ’ s education system has been one of the governor ’ s top priorities since taking office , ” Jim Malatras , the governor ’ s director of state operations , said through a spokeswoman , “ and throughout that process , he has always partnered with groups , stakeholders , experts and other allies willing to fight for better futures for New York ’ s students . ”\nThe governor ’ s proposals , particularly one that would base 50 percent of teachers ’ evaluations on their students ’ test scores , stirred fierce opposition from state and local teachers ’ unions , as well as many principals and parents .


███ Dispatch : July 8 The coronavirus pandemic has led to a surge in families considered food insecure — and that ’ s true across demographic groups . But for Black and Hispanic families , the numbers are unprecedented .\nDeVos , who has been criticized for standing on the sidelines during the crisis , took a tough tone . During a call with governors , DeVos slammed the Fairfax , Va. , district for its distance learning “ disaster ” in the spring and offering a choice of only zero or two days of in-person instruction moving forward , according to notes of a call , led by Vice President Mike Pence , with governors obtained by ███ . Earlier in the pandemic , DeVos had been more open to kids learning both online and during in-person classes .\n“ Education leaders need to examine real data and weigh risk . … Risk is involved in everything we do , from learning to ride a bike to riding a rocket into space and everything in between , ” she said .\nBut a statement Tuesday night from teachers unions , the PTA , special education administrators and secondary school principals indicated that their relationship with the White House has hit a new low .\n`` Throughout this pandemic , the administration has failed to address the needs of students , especially those students who need the most support . They have failed to listen to families and public school educators who have been on the frontlines serving their communities , '' the statement read .\n`` Public school educators , students and parents must have a voice in critical conversations and decisions on reopening schools . The president should not be brazenly making these decisions . ''\nTrump and DeVos praised Florida ’ s new reopening plan , which orders the state ’ s public schools to reopen in August for at least five days per week for all students . `` We will put out the fires as they come up , but we have to open our schools , ” Trump said , and he decried “ political statements ” that will keep schools closed .\n“ They think it 's going to be good for them politically , so they keep the schools closed . No way , ” he said during a roundtable discussion at the White House . “ So we 're very much going to put pressure on governors and everybody else to open the schools , to get them open . And it 's very important . It 's very important for our country . It 's very important for the well-being of the student and the parents . ”\nTrump had tweeted on Monday : `` Corrupt Joe Biden and the Democrats don ’ t want to open schools in the Fall for political reasons , not for health reasons ! They think it will help them in November . Wrong , the people get it ! ''\nThe push to reopen comes as parents agonize over whether it will be safe to send their kids back to school this fall and districts wrestle with whether and how to conduct classes . The reopening of schools is vital not just to getting the economy going , but to Trump ’ s reelection prospects . The campaign may be banking on the issue as a way to revive his appeal among disaffected suburban women , whose support will be key .\nThe Trump campaign is also seizing on former Vice President Joe Biden 's support of teachers unions that are stalwarts of Democratic politics and challenging Biden ’ s commitment to helping parents get their kids back to school . The campaign ’ s “ question of the day ” on Tuesday for the presumptive Democratic nominee is “ Will you side with union bosses who want to keep schools closed or parents who want their kids to keep learning ? ''\nHealth and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar backed up DeVos , saying parents should expect schools to deliver a safe learning environment for their children , even during a pandemic .\n“ We must reopen , ” he said during a White House event on reopening schools . “ We ’ ve got to get people back to work , back to school , back to health care , because we ca n't stay locked in our homes forever . It 's bad for our physical and mental and emotional health — us as adults , as well as for our kids . ”\nBut Lily Eskelsen García , president of the National Education Association , said `` the reality is no one should listen to Donald Trump or Betsy DeVos when it comes to what is best for students . ''\nAfter Trump tweeted , “ SCHOOLS MUST OPEN IN THE FALL ! ! ! , ” García fired back on Monday , “ You forgot to add the word ‘ SAFELY. ’ ” Biden , speaking to the NEA on Friday , pledged his administration will have a `` teacher-oriented '' Department of Education .\nMeanwhile , American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten tweeted on Tuesday that , to minimize the risk of spreading Covid-19 , schools need `` double the staff and double the space to teach in person . But with state budgets facing massive cuts as a result of the pandemic , we need federal funding to # ReopenSafely , '' she wrote .\nThe White House hosted events throughout Tuesday on safely reopening , culminating with the roundtable discussion with Trump , first lady Melania Trump , administration officials and teachers , administrators and students from around the country . House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy ( R-Calif. ) wrote an op-ed published in USA Today advocating liability protections for schools in any upcoming emergency relief package and underlining GOP support for helping parents with child care problems .\nLast spring , DeVos , in a slight departure from Trump , suggested through a spokesperson that schools may have to stick with virtual learning if they ’ re not ready to fully reopen . But on Tuesday , during the panel discussion at the White House , she praised Florida Education Commissioner Richard Corcoran for issuing a “ very comprehensive ” plan to reopen in August for at least five days per week for all students .\n“ There may be other states and other communities that want to look at that , but again , with the expectation that students are together and that families will be able to count on a five-day school week if that ’ s the right answer for them , ” she said .\nDuring the later panel discussion with Trump , DeVos said too many students `` were trapped in schools that do n't meet their needs '' even before the virus , and that this is the time to reopen and rethink education — a common refrain for the school choice advocate .\n`` This moment demands actions , '' she said . `` Not excuse-making or fearmongering . ''\nThe White House is leaning on CDC reopening guidance and a report from the American Academy of Pediatrics that details the importance of in-person learning and “ strongly advocates that all policy considerations for the coming school year should start with a goal of having students physically present in school . ”\nCDC Director Robert Redfield said during another White House panel discussion that reopening plans should minimize the risk of Covid-19 while providing students the critical services , academic resources , and social and emotional support they need . And plans should anticipate that Covid cases `` will in fact occur . ''\n`` The CDC encourages all schools , all schools to do what they need to reopen , '' he said , adding that the agency ’ s guidance viewed as a recommendation to reopen . `` Nothing would cause me greater sadness than to see any school district or school use our guidance as a reason not to reopen . ''


The President has been back out on the road again , spinning heartwarming tales and pushing for his second term agenda , as you ’ d expect any recently reelected leader to do . I ’ ll confess that I had a hard time paying attention to a lot of it , what with asteroids crashing to Earth on poop filled cruise ships and all , but there was one theme which caught my attention . He ’ s going all in on the hot new fad of comprehensive immigration reform .\nPresident Barack Obama told a group of Senate Democrats Wednesday that Congress must move forward with comprehensive immigration reform , or else he will propose his own legislation on the hot-button topic… In a description of Wednesday ’ s meeting , the White House said Obama “ reiterated the key principles he believes must be a part of any bipartisan , commonsense effort , including continuing to strengthen border security , creating an earned path to citizenship , holding employers accountable and streamlining legal immigration . ”\nEveryone seems to be talking about it these days , and not just Democrats . Republicans from Marco Rubio to John McCain have their own proposals , many of which involve some form of what the President is talking about . You can call it a “ path to citizenship ” or amnesty or Expedited Entry… whatever you like . But for some reason there are still quite a few of us who hear proposals such as these and get an uneasy feeling . For some of us , it may even be hard to quantify exactly what ’ s wrong . But if you harbor any such qualms , of course , you will be immediately labeled… say it with me…\nWhatever . But as I considered the question this week , I realized that there might be a better way to describe exactly why this sounds troubling . And to understand it , you really need to talk about the story of Ray Bowman and William Kirkpatrick . Those names might not be familiar unless you lived in the Pacific Northwest in the 90s , but they were something of a legend . In a career spanning more than 16 years they robbed 28 banks around the country for a total of more than $ 7 million . I ’ m not going all anti-hero worship on you here , but you ’ ve got to admit… in terms of raw focus and mission attention , these guys were good . They stole a LOT of money without getting caught .\nBut the law finally caught up with them , and in 1999 they went to trial and were sent to lengthy stretches in the Crowbar Motel . Now here ’ s the thing about their story… during the trial , not one person – not in the media , the public , the courts or the government – not one single person stood up to say anything remotely like the following :\nYou know , yeah… okay .. they stole the money . But they ’ ve had it for a really long time now . And their families are depending on it for retirement and the kids ’ college . Some of it is invested in various places and we ’ d have to draw it out . Maybe , after all this time , we should just let them keep it .\nWhy did nobody say that ? The answer is because they broke the law and they got caught . This applies for virtually any other law you could name… except for illegal immigration . As things stand now , crossing the border without the proper authorization and paperwork is a crime . Beyond that , continuing to stay here without said credentials is also a crime . If you do this , you are committing a crime each and every day that you are here . But for some reason , we seem to be reaching the point where we ’ re fine with treating this as more of a game of Red Rover Red Rover . Yes , it ’ s a crime to come over the border uninvited , but if you make it to home base , maybe we ’ ll just forget about it .\nNow , before the inevitable , hollow argument comes flying back at me here , I ’ m not talking about anything resembling the statute of limitations . ( Why we have a statute of limitations is a debate for another day . ) Bowman and Kirkpatrick kept committing crimes all through their run . And people who are here illegally continue to break the law every single day by the simple fact of being in the country . If you want to have a discussion about a statute on illegal immigration where people can leave for seven years and have it dropped from their record… fine . We can have that debate . But it doesn ’ t apply to this situation .\nAllow me to also answer the second , inevitable question which crops up every time we have this discussion . No , I have no idea what to do about the five million or twelve million or twenty million illegal immigrants currently breaking the law every single day in this country . I have not even the beginning of a hint as to what should be done about it . I also don ’ t know what to do about the 90 % of robberies that go unsolved each year . But I ’ m pretty sure that the answer isn ’ t to decriminalize theft .\nI ’ ve had some conflicting feelings about this immigration question myself , I confess . But America either is or it is not a nation of laws . If we are to change our system so that entering our nation without permission is no longer a crime – or at least not that serious of one – then lawmakers need to make that clear . But don ’ t tell us you ’ re doing it just because you can ’ t figure out how to stop people from breaking the law . And if keeping control of our borders and retaining management of who does or does not enter is still an important priority and a criminal matter , that should be made clear also . What we ’ re getting out of Washington now is static , clarifying nothing and selling a feel-good product which doesn ’ t seem to address any of these questions .


Sen. Marco Rubio says he ’ s done more on the issue of immigration than former Secretary of State and 2016 Democratic presidential frontrunner Hillary Rodham Clinton ever has .\n“ I mean , I helped pass an immigration bill in a Senate dominated by Democrats . And that ’ s more than she ’ s ever done . She ’ s given speeches on it , but she ’ s never done anything on it . So I have a record of trying to do something on it , ” the Florida Republican , who announced his 2016 presidential bid on Monday , told NPR .\nMr. Rubio ’ s support in 2013 for the comprehensive bill , which he eventually backed away from , ended up costing him with some conservatives . He said that the push ultimately didn ’ t work because the issue of illegal immigration was not sufficiently addressed and that he warned about that through the process — but said immigration reform is still necessary .\n“ I just don ’ t think you can do it in a comprehensive , massive piece of legislation , given the lack of trust that there is today in the federal government , ” he said .\n“ I honestly believe that the key to moving forward on immigration is to first and foremost prove to the American people that we are going to bring future illegal immigration under control — that if we legalize 12 million people , they won ’ t be replaced by 12 million more who are here illegally , ” Mr. Rubio said . “ And I honestly believe , given my experiences on this issue now , that if we did that , the American people and the majority of Republicans and conservatives will be very reasonable and , and responsible about how we address the reality that we have 12 million human beings living in this country illegally . ”\nRep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz , chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee , though , skewered Mr. Rubio ’ s position on the issue .\nSEE ALSO : Marco Rubio hails inspirational personal story in launching 2016 bid\n“ He even went so far as to run away from his own immigration plan when the most extreme wing of his party put pressure on him , ” said Ms. Wasserman Schultz , Florida Democrat . “ Rubio says he ’ s a new type of Republican , but the only things he ’ s ever championed are the same failed policies the public has already rejected , and the only cause he ’ s ever advanced is his own . ”


When it takes up the question of whether President Obama 's 2014 immigration executive actions were constitutional , the Supreme Court will throw out its typical playbook .\nUnited States v. Texas is one of the most — if not the most — important cases before the highest court this term . It 's certainly the most important immigration case the Supreme Court has taken up in a generation ( or , arguably , a century ) . And the Court is treating it accordingly .\nOn Monday , instead of splitting up 60 minutes of oral arguments between the two sides of the case , as usually happens , the Court will convene for 90 minutes — and bring in more parties to argue their case .\nTexas and the 25 other states suing will get 30 minutes . The federal government will get 35 . But the Supreme Court has also given 10 minutes to a lawyer representing a group of immigrant women who 'd benefit from Obama 's executive actions . And that 's not all — 15 minutes will go to the US House of Representatives ( thanks to the Republican House majority ) , which has jumped in to support the states .\nThe unusually complicated oral argument process reflects just how messy this case is . It 's a case covering surprisingly narrow-sounding legal questions , but its outcome carries broad implications for the relationship between Congress and the president , and the relationship between the federal government and the states . Oh , yeah — and it 's a presidential election year , and both immigration and the Court itself have become election issues .\nAll this makes it something of a nightmare scenario for Chief Justice John Roberts , who tends to be more anxious than the typical Supreme Court justice to present the Court 's opinions as drawn purely from law rather than politics .\nAs the justices hear oral arguments and consider the case before issuing an opinion ( which they 're expected to do in late June , at the end of the term ) , Roberts and the other justices will have to work through legal questions that are both less contentious and more abstract than the broader immigration debate makes them seem .\nThen they 'll have to figure out if there 's any way they can cobble together a five-vote majority for a lasting opinion — or if the eight-person Court will deadlock , putting the most important case of the Court 's term in limbo and creating the opportunity for chaos .\nIn November 2014 , President Obama issued a series of memos declaring executive actions on immigration . Two of those are at issue in this case .\nOne memo expanded the existing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program , or DACA , which since 2012 had allowed immigrants who 'd come to the US as children to apply for temporary protection from deportation and work permits .\nThe other one added a new deferred action program — the Deferred Action for Parents of Americans program — which would have allowed millions of unauthorized immigrants who have US citizen or permanent resident children to apply for deportation protection and work permits as well .\nThe two 2014 actions are usually referred to as DAPA/DACA+ . Since the states won in the lower courts , both of them have been put on hold since the first ruling was issued in February 2015 . The original DACA program from 2012 , however , is still in place and is n't being challenged in this suit . ( To prevent confusion , I 'll just refer to DAPA instead of DAPA/DACA+ when talking about the 2014 actions . )\n2 ) Why did President Obama create this program in the first place ?\nFederal immigration enforcement has totally transformed over the past 20 years . More people are eligible for deportation than ever before . The growth of the unauthorized population pre–Great Recession meant there were more people to deport . After 9/11 , the government got vastly more money and resources for deportation . And deportations escalated accordingly — from 183,000 in 1999 to a high of 400,000 during the first several years of the Obama administration .\nPresident Obama has spent most of his time in office trying to impose some sort of control on all of this — to make sure the government is choosing who 's most important to deport , rather than arbitrarily deporting anyone Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents get their hands on . His first attempts — setting high and low `` priorities '' for deportation and telling immigration agents to follow them — were something both sides in the current court case agree he could do but that rank-and-file immigration agents frequently ignored in favor of their own judgment .\nSo in 2012 , President Obama created the first deferred action program , DACA — allowing people to proactively apply for protection from deportation , rather than simply hoping that ICE followed the memo not to deport them . It 's been solidly effective . After comprehensive immigration reform stalled in Congress in 2013 , pressure grew on Obama to use the tool that had worked — deferred action — to protect other groups of low-priority immigrants , and he did just that with DAPA and expanded DACA in 2014 .\nDAPA was supposed to be the program that ensured Obama 's legacy on immigration , turning him from the `` deporter in chief '' of his first term to a man who brought immigrants out of the shadows . If the Supreme Court lets the program go forward , that legacy is assured . If it strikes DAPA down , Obama 's legacy — and immigrants ' attitude toward the Democratic Party — will be an ambivalent and disappointing one .\n3 ) How did United States v. Texas get to the Supreme Court ?\nUnited States v. Texas is political in its origins . That does n't at all mean that the states that sued the Obama administration are wrong on the merits — it 's just an acknowledgment of the circumstances around the case 's genesis shortly after Obama announced the executive actions .\nThere was n't a serious legal challenge to the original DACA program in 2012 , even though many of the criticisms of DAPA in this case would have applied to DACA as well . But in June 2012 the country was in the middle of a general election campaign , and the Republican nominee was trying to run toward the center and appeal to Latinos . In November 2014 , on the other hand , the relatively unpopular President Obama was responding to an electoral defeat in the midterm elections — including the loss of the Senate — with executive actions on an issue that mobilized the GOP base .\nThe states on each side of the case have lined up along partisan lines . The Texas suit involves 23 states — all but three of them under unified Republican control — as well as four Republican governors ( three of whom have Democratic attorneys general who would n't let the state officially join the case ) and one Republican attorney general . The states that have filed briefs supporting the Obama administration , meanwhile , represent about two-thirds of the states with Democratic attorneys general .\nTexas is leading the coalition of states bringing the lawsuit for two reasons . One , it 's offered the most persuasive case for how DAPA could actually hurt the state ( more on that later ) . Two , it houses the Southern District of Texas , which was the court the states chose to file their case in , presumably because they knew they 'd have a good chance there . ( The administration and its allies have implied that this is unfair , but it happens all the time . )\nThey chose wisely . In February 2015 — just a few days before the government was scheduled to start accepting applications for expanded DACA — Judge Andrew Hanen issued an injunction , preventing the government from moving ahead with the program on the logic that the states were `` likely '' to prevail on some of their claims . The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction . And in January , the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case .\nAs the case has made its way through the courts , it 's gotten much broader . Initially , the injunction was based on a narrow claim that the Obama administration had n't used the right procedure in instituting DAPA . The Fifth Circuit ruled that DAPA was also ( or at least , was likely to be ) illegal on the merits . And now the Supreme Court has added a constitutional question : whether DAPA violates the `` take care '' clause of the Constitution .\nWhile this is theoretically still a ruling on the injunction , the Supreme Court is dealing with the merits of the case — ensuring that if a majority of the Court 's eight justices side with the Obama administration , or with the states , the case is finished ( and DAPA is alive , or dead ) for the duration of Obama 's time in office .\nThe stakes have risen accordingly . The House of Representatives asked , and was granted , the chance to argue that DAPA violates laws that Congress has passed — something that is n't totally unheard of at the Supreme Court level but certainly raises the political temperature of the case .\nAnd on the federal government 's side , the argument on behalf of the `` Jane Doe '' immigrant women — not to mention the likely presence of many potential DAPA beneficiaries in the Supreme Court during the oral arguments — will inevitably remind the justices that this is a question of the balance and separation of powers , and about immigrants themselves .\n4 ) What is the Supreme Court actually ruling on in this case ?\nBecause immigration is such a divisive culture war issue — and because phrases like `` enforce the law '' get tossed around frequently as talking points — it sure seems like this case should be a massive legal dispute over what should happen to unauthorized immigrants in the US . But it 's not . There are four questions at play in the case , and all of them are , given the importance of the case , relatively narrow .\n1 ) Is it even legal for Texas to sue the federal government to stop the DAPA program ?\nThe states ' case , in one sentence : It costs the state government money to give subsidized driver 's licenses to DAPA recipients who now qualify for them .\nThe federal government 's case , in one sentence : If that were all it took for a state to sue the federal government over a policy it did n't like , the courts would be clogged forever .\nThe first question the Court has to address whether Texas and the other states had `` standing '' — whether they are legally able to bring the lawsuit at all . In order to show standing , Texas has to show that implementing DAPA causes some direct harm to the state .\nEven if the substance of Texas 's legal argument against DAPA is correct , if it ca n't show that it had standing the whole suit gets dismissed — allowing DAPA to go into effect after all . ( This route would give the Supreme Court some appealing options , as we 'll get to in a bit . )\nThe Republican governors and state attorneys general on Texas 's side of the case clearly think that allowing unauthorized immigrants to remain in their states is harmful for all sorts of reasons . But as is often the case with Supreme Court cases — and is definitely the case with this one — the actual argument being put forward in the courtroom is a lot narrower than the argument over whether unauthorized immigrants are good or bad for America that 's happening around the case .\nSo far , courts have found that the states have standing for a single reason : Texas driver 's license costs . Under Texas law , people who get deferred action are eligible for driver 's licenses — and because fees only partially cover the cost of producing a license , the state government covers the rest of the cost . DAPA would make hundreds of thousands of Texans eligible to apply for driver 's licenses for the first time , which would cost the state money .\nThe Supreme Court now has to decide whether that 's enough of a reason to allow Texas ( and the other states ) to sue the federal government over the entire policy .\nThe federal government argues it 's not President Obama 's fault that Texas law would allow DAPA recipients to get driver 's licenses . Furthermore , supporters of the federal government 's side in this case argue there 's a slippery slope : Allow the states to sue the government over a policy they do n't like , as long as they can show that it costs the state something ( even if that cost is recouped ) , and the courts will be clogged with lawsuits left and right .\nThey 're hoping that possibility will scare Chief Justice Roberts ( who dissented in a previous case about states suing the federal government , Massachusetts v. EPA ) into protecting the Supreme Court 's legacy by remaining above the dispute .\n2 ) Is DAPA a substantive new regulation — which the Obama administration did n't follow the proper procedure for ?\nThe federal government 's argument , in one sentence : Nope , it 's just a general `` statement of policy , '' and we do those all the time .\nThe states ' argument , in one sentence : It sets pretty hard-and-fast standards for who qualifies for deferred action and work authorization ; that seems pretty rule-like .\nThis question also seems pretty narrow — it 's a challenge about whether the Obama administration did DAPA the right way , instead of whether it was the right thing to do . So it might not get a lot of the Supreme Court 's attention . But this was actually the basis for the original ruling freezing DAPA , issued in February 2015 by Judge Hanen of the Fifth Circuit .\nUnder the Administrative Procedures Act , the government ca n't just issue new regulatory `` rules '' ; it has to propose them and then allow a certain period for public response . ( Hence the term `` notice and comment , '' which comes up a bunch when people are discussing this aspect of the Supreme Court case . )\nThe Obama administration did n't do this with DAPA . It argues it did n't have to , because it was n't a real rule , just a general guideline . The states disagree .\nAt root , this is a disagreement about how the deferred action programs actually work : whether immigration agents actually have the leeway to reject applications for any reason ( policy-like ) or whether the Obama administration has dictated that anyone who meets the standards should get protection ( rule-like ) .\nAnd because DAPA has n't gone into effect yet , this is really an argument about how the original DACA program is working — even though the existing deferred action program is n't being challenged in this case .\n3 ) Is DAPA within the president 's authority , or does it encroach on parts of immigration law where Congress has already set down the rules ?\nThe federal government 's argument , in one sentence : DAPA is just a way to tell immigrants they 're not being deported — something that both sides agree is legal .\nThe states ' argument , in one sentence : DAPA goes beyond that , by bestowing `` lawful presence '' and work permits on immigrants Congress did n't want to grant either one to .\nLegally , this is the biggest question about DAPA : Does it violate US law by going beyond what the president is allowed to do on immigration ? But again , the disagreement between the two sides in the actual court case is a lot narrower than you 'd think ( given the general heatedness of the immigration debate ) .\nUS immigration law gives the president a lot of latitude to make policy decisions — more than he gets in a lot of other areas . So the states in this case agree that President Obama ( and the rest of the executive branch ) have the latitude to choose whom to deport and whom not to deport . The states even say it would be okay if the Obama administration issued cards to people who were `` low priorities '' for deportation indicating that they were low priorities .\nBut they say DAPA goes beyond what the president is allowed to do , and crosses into areas where Congress has set firm rules on immigration , in two ways . It allows deferred action recipients to apply for work permits , which the states argue violates Congress 's intent not to allow unauthorized immigrants to work legally in the US . And , they say , DAPA deems people to be `` lawfully present '' in the US even though Congress has said it 's illegal for them to be here .\nThe phrase `` lawful presence '' is probably going to be thrown around a lot at Monday 's oral arguments — it 's become increasingly central to the states ' argument . The federal government argues that the states are simply getting confused . `` Lawful presence '' is n't the same thing as `` lawful status '' in immigration law — it does n't grant anyone the right to be in the US . ( The federal government has started arguing that it 's really more like `` tolerated presence . '' )\n3 ) Is Obama abandoning his constitutional obligation to `` take care '' to enforce Congress 's laws by implementing DAPA ?\nThis question was n't even considered in the lower courts — the Supreme Court added it to the case on its own . It centers on the Constitution 's `` take care '' clause : `` He shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed . ''\nThere is n't a lot of Supreme Court jurisprudence on what this phrase actually charges the president to do , so it 's interesting that the Court felt it was particularly appropriate here — though it 's entirely possible that the justice interested in this was Antonin Scalia and the surviving justices do n't have any interest .\nThe answer to the `` take care '' question depends on whether DAPA violates US law to begin with . If the federal government is right , and DAPA is within the president 's legal authority , then he 's not abandoning his duty to execute the laws by implementing it . If the states are right , and DAPA is illegal , then Obama might be violating the `` take care '' clause in implementing it — but the program would be struck down in any event .\nFor people who believe that President Obama is legally obligated to deport unauthorized immigrants under all circumstances , the idea that he 's violating the constitution by not `` taking care '' to enforce immigration laws has some appeal . But again , neither side is actually arguing that in court .\n5 ) How is the Supreme Court likely to rule ? And how does Justice Scalia 's death affect this ?\nThere are dozens of hypothetical possible answers the Court could reach to any of the four questions above . But in terms of the case 's practical outcome , there are essentially four options .\nIf `` swing vote '' Justice Anthony Kennedy ( or Chief Justice Roberts ) joins the liberal wing of the Court , the Obama administration will get an outright five-vote majority . The lower court rulings will be overturned , and DAPA and DACA+ will start accepting applications .\nIf the conservative wing of the Court gets a five-vote majority , with a liberal justice joining the conservative wing , the lower court ruling siding with the states will be upheld for good , and DAPA and DACA+ will be permanently dead . ( This is unlikely , but it 's certainly not impossible . )\nIf Kennedy joins the conservative side , but the Court 's four liberal justices stick together , nobody will get a majority . Justice Scalia 's absence will create a 4-4 tie . That would leave the existing injunction in place — forcing the Obama administration to keep DAPA on ice — but it would force the lower courts to go back and issue final rulings on the case , which they still have n't done .\nFurthermore — and this is where things get really messy — the absence of a Supreme Court opinion could allow another circuit court to hear a case on DAPA and rule that it could go forward . How such a lawsuit would proceed is unclear ; maybe some of the states that sided with the Obama administration could find standing . But it would create a situation in which DAPA was legal in some parts of the country and illegal in others .\nIt 's entirely possible that the Supreme Court would go out of its way to avoid that level of chaos . That 's why some analysts think the most likely outcome is this :\nChief Justice Roberts joins with the Court 's liberals to throw out the case based on standing — siding with the federal government on the first question and ruling that Texas did n't have the right to bring the suit at all .\n6 ) What does the case mean for people in the real world ?\nIf the Court sides with the states , nothing changes — programs that currently are n't in effect wo n't go into effect . But if the Court sides with the administration , an estimated 4.5 million immigrants who are currently vulnerable to deportation will get three years of protection and the ability to work in the US legally .\nThe effects this could have on the lives of those immigrants ( and their families ) could be huge .\nThe evidence from DACA , which has protected about 700,000 immigrants for the past three and a half years , is promising . Three-quarters of DACA recipients had been able to get better-paying jobs , 30 percent had gone back to school , and 59 percent said they could help support their families . There 's evidence that DACA helps keep immigrants integrated into American life — instead of losing interest in school or career because they feel their immigration status holds them back .\nIf the Supreme Court reinstates DAPA at the end of June , the Obama administration will only have seven months left in office to process applications — and many of the community groups that would have been able to help people get those applications will be busy mobilizing for the election .\nFurthermore , the election might discourage some immigrants from wanting to sign up to begin with — if they 're worried that Donald Trump will be president come 2017 , they 'll be much less inclined to turn over their personal information to the government .\n7 ) What happens when a new president gets elected in November ?\nDAPA is an Obama administration initiative . There 's nothing stopping the next president from ending the program and rescinding its protections , even if the Supreme Court upholds it this year . Ted Cruz and Donald Trump have already promised to do just that in their first few days in office .\nThat does n't mean that the immigrants who have gotten deferred action so far would necessarily get deported . In fact , that 's the bigger decision that President Cruz or Trump would have to make : what to do with a database of hundreds of thousands of immigrants who are unauthorized but who by definition are well-educated , speak English , or at least have kids who are US citizens .\nA President Trump might start his mass deportation campaign by targeting the immigrants he can most easily locate : former deferred action recipients .\nSome pundits have argued that this means the real immigration fight is what happens in November , rather than what happens in the courts this spring . Insofar as the next president will choose whether to end deferred action , that 's true . But the Supreme Court decision could definitely shape what options a president has to expand it , as both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have promised to do .\nSanders has explicitly said that he 'd protect some 8 or 9 million people using deferred action ; Clinton has said she would n't deport immigrants who had n't committed crimes , but has n't explained how she 'd protect them .\nIf the Supreme Court strikes down DAPA — or upholds it , but articulates a limiting principle that clarifies that this is the most a president can do — both of those plans will be a lot harder to implement , but a Democratic president would be under even more pressure to find a way to protect immigrants . That could create trouble .\n8 ) What kind of precedent is set if the Court sides with the Obama administration ?\nConservatives siding with the states in United States v. Texas argue that if Obama wins this case , there 's no limit to who could be protected from deportation . They make a persuasive case .\nThe Obama administration argues that while DAPA was legal , it would n't have been legal to give deferred action to even more immigrants — say , parents of DACA recipients . But their reasoning on this point is fairly weak ( and it does n't help that both candidates for their own party 's presidential nomination are promising to do just that ) .\nThis lack of `` limiting principle '' gives conservatives a lot of pause . A president could do whatever he likes on a whole host of issues — say , refuse to enforce any environmental regulations , or even declare a tax cut by executive fiat . ( ███ 's Andrew Prokop lays out some of the options . )\nHypotheticals like these raise some valid concerns about the use of prosecutorial discretion generally . But these are issues with existing law , and it 's not clear that a ruling for the feds in this case would make them any worse .\nMany legal scholars believe that immigration law simply gives the president more discretion than other areas of law . So a ruling for Obama in this case would n't necessarily create a precedent for other issues .\n9 ) What kind of precedent does it set if the Court sides with the states ?\nIf the president has historically had a lot of leeway to set immigration policy , though , a ruling for the states would effectively constrain that power .\nThe states in this case are n't asking the Supreme Court to issue a broad ruling . But that does n't stop the Court from doing so if it wants . And if the Court finds that it 's illegal for the president to allow a large group of immigrants to apply for work permits , that definitely calls the original DACA program into question — and raises questions for other uses of executive power on immigrations as well . ( An extremely broad ruling against the president could even dictate that the executive branch ca n't declare immigrants `` low priorities '' for deportation , though that 's extremely unlikely . )\nBut even a relatively narrow ruling for the states would have implications for other issues where the president did n't have as much leeway to begin with .\nIt 's possible to imagine a Supreme Court ruling against Obama whose argument implicitly called into question other things he 's done , from delaying the employer mandate to modifying key provisions of No Child Left Behind ( not to mention the original DACA program ) . It would n't automatically strike down any of these , but it could open the door to future court challenges .\nWhat legal scholars who side with the administration are particularly concerned about , though , is what will happen if Texas and the other states are granted standing at all — even if the Court ultimately sides with Obama . They argue that this would essentially invite states to sue the federal government over any policy they do n't like , and then hunt down some way the policy harms them . ( In an amicus brief , for example , law professor Walter Dellinger argues that states could start suing the IRS over which organizations are exempt from federal taxes . )\nTo a certain extent , this is what the states are doing anyway — no state has ever sued the federal government for doing something the state likes . But the Supreme Court has long tried to avoid becoming a way for states to challenge federal policy willy-nilly . That 's the sort of politics it tends to want to stay out of .\nThen again , the lesson of United States v. Texas may very well be that even if politics stop at the Supreme Court door , the cases that come in — and what happens to decisions that come out — are political from start to finish .