Share This Article
Article Summary
A community member has filed a lawsuit in the Ohio Supreme Court seeking the release of the Forest Hills ICE Response Plan. The district cited a terrorism-related exemption under Ohio’s Public Records Act to withhold the document. The case raises significant questions about transparency, executive sessions, and how school districts interpret state law when responding to federal immigration enforcement.
The Forest Hills ICE Response Plan Dispute
The Forest Hills ICE Response Plan now sits at the center of a legal dispute over public transparency and statutory interpretation. Moreover, a community member filed a mandamus action in the Ohio Supreme Court. This action argues that the Forest Hills Local School District improperly invoked a terrorism-related exemption to withhold the policy from public review.
At stake is not merely immigration politics. Instead, the lawsuit focuses on how Ohio’s Public Records Act applies when a school district classifies an internal policy under a security exemption.
What the Lawsuit Alleges About the Forest Hills ICE Response Plan
The complaint argues that although Ohio Revised Code 149.433 provides an exemption for information used to protect a public office against “attack, interference, or sabotage” and for records related to preventing or responding to “acts of terrorism,” the district expanded that exemption beyond its intended scope.
The Forest Hills ICE Response Plan outlines how administrators would respond if federal law enforcement officers appear on school property to enforce federal immigration law.
By classifying the document under a terrorism-related exemption, the district effectively treated the plan as falling within language typically associated with security threats. In addition, the plaintiff contends that such a classification lacks legal justification. It also does not align with the statutory purpose of the exemption.
The lawsuit seeks to compel the release of the unredacted plan.
Immigration Enforcement Context and Federal Authority
Immigration enforcement has been a subject of significant national debate over the past several years. In January 2025, President Donald J. Trump issued Executive Order No. 14159, titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” directing the Department of Homeland Security, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to enforce federal immigration laws.
That directive includes the deportation of individuals who entered the country unlawfully and those convicted of violent crimes.
At the same time, immigration enforcement has drawn organized opposition in many communities. Protests have occurred nationwide, including demonstrations at public schools. For example, in January 2026, students conducted a walkout protest at Turpin High School within the Forest Hills Local School District.
This broader national environment helps explain why districts have drafted ICE response policies. However, federal immigration officers enforcing federal law do not constitute terrorists under ordinary legal definitions. For that reason, critics argue that applying a terrorism-based exemption to the Forest Hills ICE Response Plan raises legitimate interpretive concerns.
Executive Sessions and the Development of the ICE Policy
On February 3, 2026, the Forest Hills Board of Education met in executive session to discuss and develop its ICE Response Plan.
Under Ohio law, boards may enter executive session for limited purposes, including certain security matters. However, public policy decisions typically become subject to disclosure once adopted.
On February 14, 2026, board member Jeremy Ward posted on Facebook that the board met in executive session to develop the plan in order to
prevent mention of Immigration and Customs Enforcement from being part of the public record and associated with our district,
citing concern that such mentions could trigger outside actions.
That statement has fueled additional scrutiny of the board’s reasoning for withholding the unredacted Forest Hills ICE Response Plan.
The Public Records Act and the Terrorism Exemption
Ohio’s Public Records Act begins with a presumption of openness. Public bodies must release records unless a clearly defined statutory exemption applies.
When a public body invokes an exemption, it bears the burden of demonstrating that the exemption fits the record at issue.
The terrorism exemption under ORC 149.433 was designed to protect sensitive security infrastructure and planning related to acts of terrorism. The plaintiff argues that an administrative policy addressing potential interaction with federal law enforcement does not fall within that category.
Attorney Curt C. Hartman, who filed the lawsuit on behalf of community member Lisa Daly, stated that he finds it
shocking that the school board equates law enforcement officers simply enforcing the law to be terrorists.
The court will ultimately determine whether the exemption applies.
No Public Indication of ICE Presence
To date, there has been no public indication that ICE planned to be present on Forest Hills school property to conduct enforcement activity.
Nevertheless, the district developed the ICE response policy and later declined to release it in full.
The lawsuit asserts that withholding the unredacted Forest Hills ICE Response Plan violates the district’s legal obligations under the Public Records Act and undermines transparency.
Why the Forest Hills ICE Response Plan Case Matters
Although immigration policy generates strong opinions on both sides, the legal issue in this case remains procedural.
The court must decide whether a school district may classify an ICE response policy under a terrorism exemption in order to shield it from disclosure.
If the Ohio Supreme Court upholds the district’s interpretation, other public bodies may adopt broader applications of similar exemptions. Conversely, if the court rejects that interpretation, it could reinforce a narrower reading consistent with open-government principles.
Either outcome will clarify how security-based exemptions function in practice.
Transparency and Statutory Limits
The Forest Hills ICE Response Plan lawsuit ultimately centers on statutory interpretation and public trust.
Public records laws exist to ensure accountability. When government entities restrict access to policy documents, courts provide the check.
Regardless of one’s position on immigration enforcement, communities benefit from clarity regarding how local institutions interpret both federal authority and Ohio transparency law.
The Ohio Supreme Court’s decision will help define that boundary moving forward.
Read More
Cincinnati Public Schools funding threatened by proposed Ohio bill
FAQs
What is the Forest Hills ICE Response Plan?
The Forest Hills ICE Response Plan is a district policy outlining how administrators would respond if federal immigration enforcement officers appear on school property.
Why was the Forest Hills ICE Response Plan withheld?
The district cited a terrorism-related exemption under Ohio Revised Code 149.433, arguing the plan qualifies as a security record under the Public Records Act.
What does the lawsuit claim?
The lawsuit argues that the terrorism exemption does not apply to the Forest Hills ICE Response Plan and asks the Ohio Supreme Court to order the district to release the unredacted document.
What is a writ of mandamus?
A writ of mandamus is a legal action that asks a court to compel a public body to perform a legal duty, such as releasing public records.
Has ICE announced plans to visit Forest Hills schools?
As of now, there has been no public indication that ICE planned enforcement activity on Forest Hills school property.
Why does this case matter beyond Forest Hills?
The ruling could clarify how broadly public bodies may interpret terrorism-related exemptions under Ohio public records law.
This article represents the opinion of the author. The Cincinnati Exchange publishes community perspectives as part of its commitment to open dialogue. Legal claims referenced in this piece are drawn from publicly filed court documents.
