The United States Supreme Court has explained on different occasions that “the Bill of Rights is not for adults alone”; “[s]tudents in school as well as out of school are ‘persons’ under our Constitution.” However, what protections apply to students when public school officials take it upon themselves to search or question students seeking contraband, or suspect them of criminal behavior? The Indiana Supreme Court has stated directly that “minors in school are subject to supervision and control . . . [and] are entitled to less privacy at school than adults would enjoy in comparable situations.” We all want our children to have a safe, positive learning environment, and we want school officials empowered to protect that environment, but in what context and to what extent should students have to sacrifice rights?

When police interrogate children, we readily acknowledge that the rules must be different. The confessions of children require special caution. The reality of a child’s age generates commonsense conclusions; in police interrogations, “a reasonable child will . . . sometimes feel pressured to submit when a reasonable adult would feel free to go.” To address these concerns, children cannot waive their rights without meaningful consultation with a parent or lawyer. And, a child’s statement cannot be used in court if it was induced by a “materially false” statement by the police.

Two companion decisions from the Indiana Supreme Court address a child’s rights during interrogations in the school setting. In one case, a Decatur Middle School student had been escorted off a bus by police and questioned by a vice principle with police officers hovering over him and encouraging him to confess. Because of how police involved themselves, the Indiana Supreme Court determined that B.A.’s statements required Miranda warnings that weren’t provided. In the other case, however, a Brownsburg High School assistant principal investigating graffiti in the school’s bathrooms called a student, named D.Z. in the case, into his office for a closed-door discussion without police involvement. Not until after the confession, did a police officer speak with D.Z. The trial court allowed the prosecutor to use D.Z.’s statement to the assistant principle, but not to the officer. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that when police officers aren’t present, students are neither in custody nor under interrogation, unless the school officials act as agents of the police—meaning there is no obligation upon a school official to give Miranda warnings or other protections before interrogating a student.

The Indiana Supreme Court said the holding in D.Z. “clear rule,” a statement which raises serious concerns. Granted, Miranda, was in response to a “police-dominated atmosphere.” But, this “clear rule” set by the Indiana Supreme Court tends to ignore the inherent power/control disparity between student and school official, and the potential coercive atmosphere. It also ignores the potential motivations of the school official, even if acting on their own initiative.

Public school officials are state actors in many respects: they are prohibited from treading on students’ First Amendment rights to free speech, nor can they inhibit a student’s reasonable expression of their religious beliefs. And, seemingly most relevant to the act of interrogation, when they search students, the Fourth Amendment applies.

School officials have a great deal of control over students—both psychological and physical. School officials stand in loco parentis (in the shoes of parents) and are charged by law with the custody and control of students in their care. If students do not attend school, a new Indiana law requires a referral to the prosecutor. If a student acts up, they are met with punishment, including physical punishment that causes pain (whether prudent or not). While “zero tolerance policies” may be waning, it is still common that any evidence of criminal conduct in schools results in a referral to the juvenile court.

In addition to coercive interrogations, schools routinely conduct invasive searches of students. In fact, the ACLU of Indiana currently has two pending lawsuits against Indiana public school officials at Jay County Jr.-Sr. High School alleging that students were intrusively searched, both involving a male school official watching as female students were ordered to lift their shirts and pull their bras away from their bodies. Both students felt compelled to comply with the instructions given during the search, despite being humiliated. That is the reality of these interactions—students feel compelled to comply.

The protection of the Fifth Amendment is against the government compelling someone to be a witness against themself. When children are in school, they are subject to the control of school officials much to the same extent that adults are subject to the police. Especially where school officials curtail the freedom of a student while digging for evidence of a crime to give to the prosecutor, even if on their own initiative, the “clear rule” that none of the many protections against self-incrimination apply is at least a little bit murky.  

The Latest Battleground: Indiana’s Schools and Children

This legislative session, certain Indiana lawmakers attempted to further establish Indiana’s schools—and youth in general—as the latest battleground in the Culture Wars. This extremist agenda is presented under the guise of “parental rights” and “protection of children” — when in reality these policies are infringing on our freedom of speech, students’ privacy rights, and freedom of religion.

At least eight bills were introduced this year targeting education. These measures seemed to be a calculated effort to diminish the quality of sex education, with a disproportionate impact on LGBTQ students, promote specific religious viewpoints in public schools, and chill speech in public institutions such as schools, government buildings and even online platforms.

Despite legislators’ best attempts to take our state backwards, the ACLU of Indiana, our partners, and our supporters were ultimately able to defeat many of these dangerous and unconstitutional bills — including the school chaplains bill, in addition to legislation targeting library funding and several anti-LGBTQ bills. Click through below to read more about the bills we defeated, the bills that passed, and how we will continue to make an impact. Scroll to the bottom to see how your lawmakers voted on key bills.

On February 27, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit allowed to go into immediate effect a horrific Indiana law that prohibits transgender youth from accessing medical care that is safe and the best practice for supporting their health and wellbeing. The law, passed in 2023, is one in a series of laws that Indiana elected officials have imposed on our state in the last decade to drive LGBTQ Hoosiers away. Fortunately, the law had never taken effect thanks to a preliminary injunction in a case we brought with transgender youth, their families, and their medical providers – until now.

As soon as news of the court decision hit, the thousands of Hoosier families with transgender youth were forced to begin exploring their options for care – including moving out of state. Assuming a family has the financial means to do so, moving out of Indiana oftentimes means they leave behind grandparents who need care, businesses they built, communities they’ve invested in, and/or a state they love.

Those families who stay in Indiana will be figuring out what they can cut out of their budgets to pay for care out of state and out of pocket. Or they will be looking into unregulated avenues for accessing the medication their children need. There are few good choices for them in the short term. 

Because state law now also penalizes medical professionals who serve transgender youth, the same is true for their health care providers. These providers must contend with denying youth the care they know they need despite their mission as health care professionals and the ethical and malpractice risks this may create. They also must contend with the “aid and abet” provision of the law, which prohibits them from referring a family to a doctor in another state.

And all of this misery, uncertainty, and stress is completely unnecessary. The harm being done to Hoosier children because of this law rests with the 101 legislators who passed this bill and Governor Eric Holcomb who signed it. Unprompted by any serious outcry for this action, these elected officials inserted themselves between Hoosier families and their doctors. While perversely claiming they were protecting children and youth, legislators created a crisis for transgender youth and their families and put thousands of young Hoosiers directly in harm’s way.

The clear message the Indiana General Assembly and Governor’s office has sent to LGBTQ Hoosiers over the last decade: go away. But we’re not leaving.

My husband and I and the vast majority of the hundreds of thousands of LGBTQ Hoosiers who call Indiana home aren’t going anywhere. Some of us may need to leave for our safety, health, and sanity, and those of us who are staying completely understand. But the rest of us are staying right here in Gary, Mt Vernon, Corydon, Madison, Richmond, Fort Wayne, Fremont, Mishawaka, and everywhere in between. 

We’re digging in and protecting our school districts, our libraries, our places of worship, our communities and each other from whatever insanity the legislature chooses to throw our way next. And we’re not doing it alone. Our extended families, friends, neighbors, coworkers, and faith communities are standing with us. 

We’re that part of the state that represents the Hoosier spirit. Whether we were born here or moved here later in life, we’re building our lives in Indiana. We’re treating patients, teaching students, serving food, fixing cars, starting businesses, and contributing to our state’s economic and community wellbeing. 

And we’re doing our best to live our lives out loud, proud, and joyful because, as painful as it is, we know this moment of repression is just that – a moment. We know that the laws that attack us and other Hoosier communities will one day be voided by courts or future legislatures. 

Of course, that day won’t come by itself. Those of us who want that day have to be able to see it in the distance and work toward getting there. We have to have difficult conversations with people we love who voted for legislators who vote against us. We have to reach out to people who aren’t voting and motivate them to get to the polls. And we have to work in tandem with other communities – many of which overlap with our own – to pull Indiana back from this repressive place so that we can once again live in a state that we recognize and that recognizes us.