Lead
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton announced on Monday, Feb. 16, 2026, that his office has opened investigations into three public school districts after student protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The probes target North East Independent School District in San Antonio, Dallas Independent School District and Manor Independent School District and follow an earlier inquiry into Austin ISD. Paxton said investigators will review whether school officials failed to protect students, disrupted classrooms and whether employees unlawfully facilitated demonstrations. His office is seeking records and other materials as part of a legal review that could lead to further action.
Key Takeaways
- Ken Paxton announced investigations on Feb. 16, 2026, into North East ISD, Dallas ISD and Manor ISD after student protests against ICE.
- Paxton is requesting records on student leave policies, excused absences, security procedures, internal communications and use of public funds.
- The probes follow an earlier inquiry into Austin ISD and broader student walkouts across Texas, including a Feb. 13, 2026 demonstration in Pflugerville.
- Dallas ISD is Texas’ second-largest district by enrollment; North East ISD ranks second in the San Antonio area.
- State leaders including Gov. Greg Abbott and the Texas Education Agency warned districts about potential funding or intervention consequences if officials facilitated walkouts.
- Investigations will determine whether any state or criminal laws were violated; allegations that staff organized protests remain under review.
- Hundreds of students participated in protests statewide as part of a national movement responding to recent federal immigration enforcement actions.
Background
Student-led protests against immigration enforcement have spread across the U.S. and through Texas since reports of lethal federal actions prompted national demonstrations. In Texas, demonstrations were recorded in multiple cities this year, with organizers and participants calling for changes to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. Districts faced rapid on-the-ground decisions balancing student safety, school discipline and respect for political expression.
Public officials on the state level have framed the walkouts as potential disruptions to instruction and, in some cases, as events that district staff may have facilitated improperly. That framing has prompted administrative responses from the Texas Education Agency and public statements from the governor’s office stressing possible sanctions. At the same time, student advocates and civil liberties groups emphasize First Amendment protections and the political nature of the protests.
Main Event
On Feb. 16, 2026, the Texas Attorney General’s office sent records requests and opened formal reviews into three school districts. The office specified categories of documents to be produced, including internal communications about the protests, protocols for excusing student absences, and any expenditures tied to protest-related activity. Officials said the purpose is to determine whether school employees unlawfully encouraged or helped organize walkouts and whether districts met their duty to minimize classroom disruptions and protect students.
The inquiry follows visible demonstrations earlier in the month, including a Feb. 13, 2026 protest outside a site believed to be an ICE detention facility on Algreg Street in Pflugerville, where many participants were high school students. Across Texas, hundreds of students participated in coordinated walkouts tied to a national movement protesting federal immigration enforcement and recent deaths involving federal officers.
Paxton’s announcement included a direct warning to public school employees about facilitation of protests and signaled his office would use legal tools available to pursue accountability. The state probe is separate from any local disciplinary processes and raises the prospect of administrative or legal consequences for districts if investigators find violations of state law or policy.
Analysis & Implications
The investigations place school districts at the center of a broader political conflict over immigration and civic expression. Administrators must navigate conflicting duties: upholding student free-speech rights while maintaining order and safety in classrooms. Legal outcomes will hinge on documentary evidence of what administrators and staff did before and during protests, and on statutory standards for state intervention.
State leverage includes funding oversight and regulatory action by the Texas Education Agency; both tools carry real consequences for large districts that depend on state allocations. If the AG’s office finds that districts authorized or aided demonstrations in ways that violate state law or policy, districts could face sanctions that influence budgeting, governance and local control debates.
For students and parents, the probes may chill on-campus political activity if personnel fear punitive state scrutiny. Conversely, civil-rights advocates argue that disciplinary or legal pressure aimed at student protesters could spark legal challenges on free-speech grounds. The tension between constitutional protections for minors and school authority will likely play out in administrative proceedings and potentially in court.
Comparison & Data
| District | Regional Rank |
|---|---|
| Dallas Independent School District | Statewide: 2nd largest |
| North East Independent School District (San Antonio area) | San Antonio area: 2nd largest |
| Manor Independent School District | Growing Central Texas district |
The districts under review include some of the largest student populations in Texas, which raises the stakes for any state action. District size affects administrative capacity, communications infrastructure and the political visibility of any penalties. Historically, state interventions in large districts prompt prolonged legal and political disputes.
Reactions & Quotes
Paxton framed the investigations as part of his office’s duty to uphold law and order in public schools and to prevent what he described as ideological influence. Officials said they will review whether public employees engaged in prohibited conduct that encouraged student participation in protests aimed at law enforcement.
“I will not allow Texas schools to become breeding grounds for the radical Left’s open borders agenda. Let this serve as a warning to any public school official or employee who unlawfully facilitates student participation in protests targeting our heroic law enforcement officers: my office will use every legal tool available to hold you accountable.”
Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (statement)
Advocates and student organizers emphasize the scale and political motivation of the demonstrations, which they say were a response to federal enforcement actions. Reporting on the movement noted widespread student participation across Texas cities earlier this year.
“Hundreds of Texas students walked out earlier this year as part of a national movement protesting immigration enforcement.”
The Texas Tribune (reporting)
State leaders have warned of consequences while district officials weigh compliance with records requests alongside legal counsel. Local responses may include document production, internal reviews and public statements from district leadership in the days ahead.
Unconfirmed
- Whether any district employees actively organized or financed the protests remains under investigation and has not been independently verified.
- The extent to which state funding cuts or formal TEA intervention will follow these probes is not yet determined.
- Precise links between the protests and the recent fatal federal enforcement incidents cited by demonstrators require further corroboration in public records and reporting.
Bottom Line
The AG’s investigations mark an escalation in the state’s response to student-led protests over immigration enforcement and place several major Texas school districts under formal review. The outcome will depend on documentary evidence about district actions and whether state law or policy thresholds for intervention are met. Districts facing requests will need to balance transparency with legal strategy while preparing for potential political and operational fallout.
Observers should expect further records disclosures, statements from district officials and possible legal challenges if sanctions or aggressive enforcement follow. The probes underscore persistent tensions between student activism, school governance and state political priorities heading into the remainder of 2026.
Sources
- The Texas Tribune — news reporting and original coverage of the Paxton announcement and district responses.
- Office of the Texas Attorney General — official state attorney general website (official statements and press releases).
- Texas Education Agency — state education agency (official guidance and policy notices).
- Office of the Governor — official state executive communications (statements and press releases).
- Dallas Independent School District — district website (public information for Dallas ISD).