Sanctuary policy preemption conflicts between the federal and local governments

This article does not receive scheduled updates. If you would like to help our coverage grow, consider donating to Ballotpedia. Contact our team to suggest an update.

Ballotpedia's coverage of state and local preemption conflicts

Preemption conflicts by policy Coronavirus • Energy infrastructure Firearms • GMO Labor • LGBT • Marijuana Plastic bags Police department budgets Ridesharing Sanctuary jurisdictions • Soda taxes

Other storylines: Sharing economy Municipal partisanship

Last updated: April 8, 2022

Local jurisdictions have employed a spectrum of law enforcement policies that do not distinguish between citizens and other residents. This spectrum ranges from instructing police not to inquire about immigration status at traffic stops to providing municipal identification cards to city residents regardless of citizenship in order to gain access to public services.

On April 28, 2021, the Biden administration rescinded a Trump administration executive order that introduced penalties against sanctuary cities—which limit the enforcement and prosecution of federal immigration laws—including making them ineligible for federal grants. The order drew opposition from cities that self-identified as sanctuary jurisdictions. A federal ruling on April 25, 2017, halted the order.

The Trump administration executive order was an example of preemption, a legal concept that allows the federal government to preempt local or state laws if those laws conflict with federal laws. To learn about preemption conflicts between local and state governments, click here.

Ballotpedia's analysis uses a local jurisdiction's stance on detainer requests from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as a primary indicator of sanctuary status. Cities and counties that decline detainer requests outside of capital offenses or otherwise provide public services without regard to immigration status are categorized as sanctuary jurisdictions.

Email [email protected] to notify us of updates or new sanctuary policy preemption stories.

Responses

State legislation

State legislatures throughout the United States sought to preempt local governments as legislative sessions kicked off in 2017. According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, legislators in 33 states considered proposals to prohibit sanctuary policies throughout their communities in 2017. The nation's two largest states—California and Texas—showed divergent paths by legislators on the issue of sanctuary jurisdictions.

California

On October 5, 2017, Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed Senate Bill (SB) 54 into law, saying, "These are uncertain times for undocumented citizens and their families, and this bill strikes a balance that will protect public safety, while bringing a measure of comfort to those families who are now living in fear every day." The law went into effect on January 1, 2018. On April 3, the California State Senate passed SB 54 on a party-line vote, with 27 Democrats voting in favor and 12 Republicans voting against. On September 15, the California State Assembly passed SB 54 with amendments, by a 50-26 vote. The state Senate agreed to the Assembly's changes on September 16 and sent the bill to Brown for his signature.

SB 54 as introduced included the following provisions:

• Prohibiting California law enforcement agencies from using state and local resources to report, arrest, investigate, or detain individuals for federal law enforcement purposes.
• Limiting coordination between county jails and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials.
• Allowing local agencies to notify ICE of the release dates for violent felons and to alert federal officials to previously deported individuals with criminal backgrounds.

As passed, SB 54 established the following provisions:

• Exempting state prisons from provisions prohibiting state law enforcement agencies from cooperating with federal immigration agents.
• Permitting law enforcement officials to notify ICE of the release of certain individuals and share database information with immigration agents.
• Allowing federal immigration agents to interview jailed individuals suspected of violating federal immigration law.

Supporters of the bill, such as Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck, argued SB 54 would improve relations between law enforcement and immigrant communities and offer immigrants protections at a time when the White House indicated it intended to pursue stricter immigration policies. According to Beck, the number of police reports of rape and spousal abuse declined in 2017. He said, "While there is no direct evidence that the decline is related to concerns within the Hispanic community regarding immigration, the department believes deportation fears may be preventing Hispanic members of the community from reporting when they are victimized."

Opponents of the legislation, such as the California State Sheriffs' Association (CSSA), said immigration policy should be set by the federal government and sanctuary policies could lead to an increase in violent crimes. On September 12, the CSSA released a statement opposing the bill: "Our overarching concern remains that limiting local law enforcement's ability to communicate and cooperate with federal law enforcement officers endangers public safety."

On March 27, 2018, the Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to join a Trump administration lawsuit against California's sanctuary state law. Click here for more information.

On September 27, 2018, Superior Court Judge James Crandall ruled against SB 54 in a separate case, saying the law illegally invaded the rights of Huntington Beach. Click here for more information.

On June 15, 2020, the United States Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case.

Texas

Gov. Greg Abbott (R) signed SB 4 into law on May 7, 2017. As enacted, SB 4 prohibited municipalities and campus police departments from preventing or limiting the enforcement of federal immigration law. It required police chiefs and sheriffs to comply with federal requests to hold criminal suspects for possible deportation. It allowed any resident of a Texas city or county to ask the state attorney general to investigate a lack of compliance with immigration laws. It also allowed law enforcement officers to ask whether someone was residing in the United States legally and exchange that information with the federal government. The bill also provided for a grant program to offset the costs to localities of immigration enforcement and prohibited discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, language, or national origin.

SB 4 was originally scheduled to go into effect on September 1, 2017, but The City of El Cenizo and Maverick County filed suit against the law on May 9, 2017. El Paso County filed a separate lawsuit against the state on May 22, 2017, though this suit was considered alongside the Maverick County lawsuit as the federal court hearing began on June 26, 2017.

On March 13, 2018, a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled most of SB 4 could remain in effect while litigation was pending. The ruling overturned an August 30 decision from federal district Judge Orlando L. Garcia. For more information on the lawsuits, click here.

Noteworthy lawsuits

San Antonio, Texas (2018-2022)

On November 30, 2018, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) filed a lawsuit in Travis County against the city of San Antonio, its police chief, and city manager. The attorney general asked the court to order the city and its officials to comply with Senate Bill 4, a state law intended to compel local compliance with federal immigration laws. The lawsuit argued Police Chief William McManus violated SB 4 in 2017 when he released 12 individuals suspected of entering the U.S. without legal permission.

On December 23, 2017, San Antonio police found the 12 individuals in an 18-wheel truck. The police interviewed the individuals and then released them, rather than turning the case over to federal authorities.

Paxton argued, "By a series of orchestrated and intentional actions, McManus and [the San Antonio Police Department] enforced a policy of prohibiting and materially limiting [Homeland Security Investigation] from enforcing federal immigration laws and prohibited and materially limited their officers from cooperating with ICE to enforce federal immigration laws."

San Antonio City Attorney Andy Segovia said in a written statement, "The Attorney General's characterizations of what happened that day are clearly aimed at furthering a political agenda. The City has a long history of cooperating with federal authorities and we will continue to do so."

In July 2019, a state judge dismissed parts of Paxton's case against San Antonio. The question of whether San Antonio's policy would provide for local officials to not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, in violation of SB 4, was still at issue. A jury trial in the case was scheduled for February 14, 2022.

On April 8, 2022, San Antonio agreed to pay $300,000 to settle Paxton's lawsuit. As part of the settlement, McManus was allowed to remain as police chief and the city did not admit fault.

City of El Cenizo and Maverick County, Texas (2017-2021)

The City of El Cenizo and Maverick County in Texas filed suit against SB 4, the state's law requiring local compliance with federal immigration authorities, on May 9, 2017. El Paso County filed a separate lawsuit against the state on May 22, 2017, though this suit was considered alongside the Maverick County lawsuit as the federal court hearing began on June 26.

The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund filed a motion on behalf of San Antonio to join the Maverick County lawsuit on June 1, 2017. Austin's city attorney filed a motion to join the San Antonio lawsuit on the same day. Dallas (June 6, 2017), Houston (June 21, 2017), and Laredo (July 17, 2017) later joined the San Antonio lawsuit. These suits argued SB 4 violated constitutional protections by empowering local law enforcement to enforce federal law without specific guidance.

On March 13, 2018, a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled most of SB 4 could remain in effect while litigation was pending. The panel prevented the implementation of a provision punishing local officials who adopted or enforced policies that did not comply with federal immigration laws. The ruling overturned an August 30 decision from federal district Judge Orlando L. Garcia. Garcia issued a temporary injunction on SB 4, preventing the law from taking effect on September 4.

Travis County, Texas (2017)

On May 8, 2017, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton (R) sued Travis County in U.S. district court seeking a declaration that SB 4, the state's law requiring local compliance with federal immigration authorities, was constitutional. Paxton's suit focused on ensuring the law's constitutionality on Fourth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment grounds. Judge Sam Sparks dismissed Paxton's lawsuit against Travis County in federal district court on August 9, 2017.

On December 13, 2018, a three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled Paxton lacked standing to file a lawsuit before SB 4 had gone into effect.

Orange County, California (2018-2020)

June 15, 2020: The United States Supreme Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in the case.

April 18, 2019: Judges Milan Smith, Paul Watford, and Andrew Hurwitz of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit unanimously ruled that SB 54, California's sanctuary state law, did not conflict with federal law. Smith was appointed to the court by President George W. Bush (R). Watford and Hurwitz were appointed by President Barack Obama (D).

Writing for the panel, Smith wrote that SB 54 "makes the jobs of federal immigration authorities more difficult" but "does not directly conflict with any obligation" that federal law imposes on state or local governments. Smith also wrote against a provision in AB 103. "Only those provisions that impose an additional economic burden exclusively on the federal government are invalid," he said.

The decision upheld U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California Judge John Mendez's July 2018 decision. Click here to read the ruling.

July 9, 2018: Judge John Mendez of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California approved in part and dismissed in part California's motion to dismiss a lawsuit the Trump administration brought in March 2018. In his opinion, Mendez, appointed by George W. Bush (R), wrote, "The Court does not find any indication in the cited federal statutes that Congress intended for States to have no oversight over detention facilities operating within their borders." The judge granted California's motion to dismiss the lawsuit against SB 54 and Assembly Bill (AB) 103, and AB 450. AB 103 established restrictions on state and local agencies, preventing them from contracting with the federal government to detain immigrants. AB 450 included a provision requiring employers to notify employees about immigration inspections.

However, Mendez let stand part of AB 450. The federal government argued against a provision in the law prohibiting employers from allowing federal officers to enter a workplace without a warrant. The law also placed limits on employers' ability to re-verify the immigration status of current employees unless required by the federal government. Mendez said the government had a plausible claim against these provisions and denied California's motion to dismiss.

July 5, 2018: Mendez ruled against the U.S. Department of Justice's request to block SB 54. Mendez wrote it was up to the state whether it would assist in enforcing the federal government's immigration policies. He also said the immigration issue should be settled through legislation, not through the court system.

In addition to ruling on SB 54, Mendez also issued an injunction barring California from fining employers who allow immigration officials to access their workplace or employment records.

May 9, 2018: The Santa Clarita City Council unanimously voted to file a brief supporting the lawsuit. Santa Clarita became the first city in Los Angeles County to officially oppose California's sanctuary city law, according to the Los Angeles Times. The Corona City Council also approved a motion condemning Senate Bill (SB) 54.

Some cities, however, supported the state. Santa Ana and Palm Springs, California, for example, signed onto a brief the American Civil Liberties Union planned to submit in support of California.

April 17, 2018: The San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted to join the legal challenge against California's sanctuary state law. The board voted 3-1 and directed the county counsel to file an amicus brief. Supervisor Greg Cox, who voted against joining the lawsuit, said the county's decision was unnecessary, as the issue would be addressed in federal court. Supervisors Dianne Jacob and Kristin Gaspar said the vote was about public safety and preventing criminals from entering the county.

President Donald Trump (R) thanked San Diego County in a tweet.

Thank you San Diego County for defending the rule of law and supporting our lawsuit against California's illegal and unconstitutional 'Sanctuary' policies. California's dangerous policies release violent criminals back into our communities, putting all Americans at risk.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 19, 2018

Four other counties in California—Tehama, Kern, Siskiyou, and Shasta—had passed non-sanctuary resolutions at the time of San Diego County's vote.

March 27, 2018: The Orange County Board of Supervisors voted to join a Trump administration lawsuit against California's sanctuary state law. The board announced its unanimous decision after a closed-door session. The vote came after the city of Los Alamitos, which is in Orange County, adopted an ordinance exempting itself from the state law. Supervisor Michelle Steel said in a statement that "[w]e cannot let the state begin cherry-picking which federal laws it decides to follow. As supervisors of this county, we all took oaths to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States and bear true faith and allegiance to it against all enemies."

The Hesperia City Council, in San Bernardino County, also voted 3-1 in March to join an amicus brief with the lawsuit.

JAG grant lawsuits against the federal government

See also: JAG grant lawsuits against the federal government (2017-2018)

In July 2017, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced new requirements for the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) and said applicants who did not meet the requirements would be ineligible to receive funds. The DOJ grants JAG funds annually to states and cities to support local law enforcement. The new conditions required applicants to comply with federal laws on immigration, particularly through local communication with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security regarding undocumented immigrants.

Several cities and states responded to the new conditions by filing lawsuits against the federal government. They argued the conditions were unconstitutional. Click here for more information on the lawsuits.

In March 2021, the United States Supreme Court dismissed three JAG cases after the Biden administration and city governments in New York and California requested the court do so. On April 14, Attorney General Merrick Garland ordered the Justice Department to roll back the Trump administration's JAG policy.

Background

Clashes between local and federal officials over immigration policy did not originate with Trump's January 2017 order. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 expanded the types of offenses that allowed for deportation proceedings and allowed the U.S. attorney general to enter into agreements with local law enforcement offices to handle immigration enforcement. This legislation, along with concerns about immigration following attacks on September 11, 2001, led to a growth in participation by cities, counties, and states in 287(g) agreements, which are named after a clause in the law. These agreements were augmented in 2008 by the Secure Communities program, an initiative whereby U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and FBI officials could gather local arrest information and compare it with a federal database of individuals residing in the country without legal permission.

State officials in Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York withdrew from the Secure Communities program in 2011. These withdrawals began a movement by law enforcement officials away from the program, with an October 2014 Pew Charitable Trusts report finding approximately 300 jurisdictions that withdrew from Secure Communities to that point. Opponents of Secure Communities argued that the program decreased community trust in police and led to deportations for minor offenses. Jurisdictions that withdrew from participation in Secure Communities created policies to narrow or eliminate data gathering by police that was commonplace under the program. In some cases, these communities also withdrew from existing 287(g) agreements. In November 2014, President Barack Obama announced the end of the Secure Communities program, with DHS creating the more narrowly defined Priority Enforcement Program on November 20, 2014.

Trump reinstated the Secure Communities program with his January 2017 executive order. On February 21, 2017, DHS released policy documents to be used for enforcement of the January 25 order. The department's new policies empowered federal officials to expedite deportations for any individuals residing in the country for up to two years without legal permission. The order and DHS policies did not specify the federal government's position on immigrants living in the U.S. under the Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA) and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA).

U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick ruled that the January 2017 order exceeded the president's authority on April 25, 2017. Orrick's order for a temporary injunction concluded that the constitutional power to control spending on federal grants to cities rests with Congress rather than the president. He also noted that comments made by President Trump and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions about tying grants to cooperation with ICE clarified ambiguities about the purpose of the executive order. The case against the executive order was brought by the City of San Francisco and Santa Clara County. On November 20, 2017, Orrick issued a permanent injunction that blocked implementation of the order that argued President Trump bypassed Congress, attempted to influence local government policy, and attempted to withhold funds unrelated to immigration. The Trump administration moved from a broader application of federal grant withholding to specific applications following the April 2017 order.

Explaining the deportation process

The deportation process may begin with a removal order issued by a federal immigration court or an ICE detainer request for an individual arrested for an unrelated charge. If a removal order exists, ICE agents may issue a detainer request to take custody and remove the individual subject to the order. ICE can also use local law enforcement reports on misdemeanor and felony charges as a means of making contact with individuals suspected of residing in the country without legal permission. In these cases, individuals may be arrested, detained in ICE facilities, and scheduled for hearings in immigration court.

Court decisions to deport individuals residing in the country without legal permission can be appealed within 30 days of filing. ICE detainees can also request to be released on bond during the hearing and appeal process. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) hears appeals of removal orders, though the attorney general and federal courts can uphold or overturn decisions by the BIA. ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations division manages the removal of individuals who lose their appeals via commercial or chartered flights to nations of origin. Federal law requires the completion of a removal order within 90 days of its issuance or the completion of the appeals process except at the discretion of the attorney general's office.

Support and opposition (2017)

Support for preemption of local policy

Pennsylvania State Sen. Guy Reschenthaler (R) sponsored SB 10, which passed the Pennsylvania State Senate on February 8, 2017. SB 10 would prohibit cities and counties from creating policies in contradiction to federal immigration policies. In Reschenthaler's speech following passage, he said:

“	Sanctuary cities are dangerous and irresponsible. 1,800 crimes in 2014, including over 121 murders in a few year span, is a steep price to pay so that sanctuary city legislators can score cheap political points. Refusing to honor federal detainer requests for dangerous criminals already in police custody increases the likelihood of those dangerous criminals returning to our communities, putting the public at greater risk.	”
—Guy Reschenthaler (February 2017)

The Federation for American Immigration Reform concluded a January 2016 report on local and state immigration enforcement with the following statement:

“	State and local law enforcement agencies do not have to turn a blind eye to immigration violations that harm their communities simply because the regulation of immigration is a federal issue. To the contrary, Congress designed immigration law with assistance from state and local law enforcement in mind. Understanding that the cost of illegal immigration disproportionately impacts state and local governments, local leaders have even more incentive to cooperate with federal officials. Sanctuary and other non-cooperation policies are harmful as they exacerbate national security threats, encourage illegal immigration, waste law enforcement and other taxpayer funded resources, and most importantly, put the public at risk by allowing known criminal aliens to be released back onto the streets. State and local lawmakers should consider enacting legislation to prohibit sanctuary policies in their communities and require cooperation with federal authorities.	”
—Federation for American Immigration Reform (January 2016)

Opposition to preemption of local policy

The U.S. Conference of Mayors issued a statement on January 30, 2017, opposing President Trump's executive order related to local and state enforcement of immigration policies. The following is an excerpt from the statement:

“	America’s mayors urge President Trump to reconsider the breadth of his executive order halting the admission of refugees and other immigrants to the United States. We will always be opposed to any discrimination based on race or religion and we believe the United States can protect its citizens while remaining a refuge for those seeking freedom and the opportunity for a better life through legal immigration.	”
—The U.S. Conference of Mayors (January 2017)

On January 26, 2017, the National League of Cities (NLC) released a statement arguing that federal immigration policies, not municipal policies, are responsible for problems with immigration enforcement. The following statement was signed by NLC President and Cleveland City Councilman Matt Zone:

“	There appears to be a false assumption that ‘sanctuary cities' prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from enforcing immigration laws. This could not be further from the truth. In practice, federal programs intended to partner with cities and towns on immigration enforcement are broken. The reality is that in cities across the nation, police departments are routinely cooperating with ICE's immigration enforcement efforts, while at the same time building constructive relationships with their communities to improve public safety. The order signed by President Trump does not clearly define sanctuary jurisdictions, so it is difficult to foresee how and which cities will be impacted by the order. Legislative efforts in 2016 to define and penalize sanctuary cities were defeated in Congress, which could have cost cities up to $137 million or more in COPS hiring grants. We call on President Trump to open a dialogue with city leaders, and work with local governments to enact real, comprehensive immigration reform that respects the principles of local control.	”
—National League of Cities (January 2017)

Public reaction (2017)

The following table lists poll results on the subject of sanctuary policies. Click [show] to see poll results last updated on November 6, 2017.

Poll results on sanctuary jurisdictions

Polling responses on sanctuary policies Polling organization Scope Poll dates Topic Approve (%) Disapprove (%) Neutral/No opinion (%) Sample size Margin of error (%) USC/The Los Angeles Times California October 27-November 6, 2017 Favor California sanctuary law 52 29 19 1,504 4.0 Rasmussen Reports National October 22-23, 2017 Favor U.S. Justice Department action against sanctuary jurisdictions 42 45 13 1,000 3.0 Rasmussen Reports National March 22-23, 2017 Favor declaration by their communities of sanctuary status 35 52 13 1,000 3.0 UC Berkeley California March 13-20, 2017 Communities in California declaring themselves sanctuary cities 56 44 - 1,000 3.6 UC Berkeley California March 13-20, 2017 Cities and counties able to ignore ICE requests 47 53 - 1,000 3.6 Florida Atlantic University Florida February 1-4, 2017 Deny federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions 36 52 12 600 3.9 Hoover Institution California January 5-9, 2017 Deny federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions 38 40 22 1,700 3.82 SoonerPoll Oklahoma December 19-26, 2016 Federal government provides funds to cities complying with ICE investigations 55.7 35.3 9 440 4.6 Rasmussen Reports National July 8-9, 2015 Favor U.S. Justice Department action against sanctuary jurisdictions 62 26 12 1,000 3.0

Cities breakdown (2017)

As of August 2017, Ballotpedia had identified 32 cities with sanctuary policies. The following chart displays stats on the 100 largest cities, also indicating the party affiliation of these cities' mayors. Click on the text directly above the chart to see breakdowns by party affiliation.

Cities by category

As of August 2017, 30 of the 32 cities identified as sanctuary jurisdictions had Democratic mayors. Of the 8 cities without identifiable sanctuary policies, five had Democratic mayors and three had Republican mayors.

Cities identified as sanctuary jurisdictions are categorized in two ways:

• Does not accept all ICE detainer requests: Cities in this category do not accept ICE detainer requests for minor offenses or non-capital crimes.
• Provides services regardless of immigration status: Cities in this category do not ask immigration status when providing public services or conducting police investigations. These cities are also unlikely to accept ICE detainer requests.

Cities identified as non-sanctuary jurisdictions (August 2017)
City	Mayor	Description
Anaheim, California	Tom Tait	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Arlington, Texas	Jeff Williams	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Atlanta, Georgia	Kasim Reed	State law prohibits non-compliance with ICE detainer requests
Aurora, Colorado	Steve Hogan	Participates in state-level cooperation with ICE
Baltimore, Maryland	Catherine Pugh	City prisons controlled by state government, which cooperates with ICE
Boise, Idaho	David Bieter	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Buffalo, New York	Byron Brown	City subject to special federal immigration rules due to border proximity
Chandler, Arizona	Jay Tibshraeny	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Charlotte, North Carolina	Jennifer Roberts	State law prohibits non-compliance with ICE detainer requests
Chesapeake, Virginia	Alan P. Krasnoff	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Colorado Springs, Colorado	John W. Suthers	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Corpus Christi, Texas	Joe McComb	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Dallas, Texas	Mike Rawlings	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Detroit, Michigan	Mike Duggan	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Durham, North Carolina	Bill Bell	State law prohibits non-compliance with ICE detainer requests
El Paso, Texas	Donald Margo	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Fort Wayne, Indiana	Tom Henry	State law prohibits non-compliance with ICE detainer requests
Fort Worth, Texas	Betsy Price	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Fresno, California	Lee Brand	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Garland, Texas	Douglas Athas	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Gilbert, Arizona	Jenn Daniels	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Glendale, Arizona	Jerry Weiers	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Greensboro, North Carolina	Nancy B. Vaughan	State law prohibits non-compliance with ICE detainer requests
Hialeah, Florida	Carlos Hernandez	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Honolulu, Hawaii	Kirk Caldwell	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Houston, Texas	Sylvester Turner	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Indianapolis, Indiana	Joseph Hogsett	State law prohibits non-compliance with ICE detainer requests
Irving, Texas	Rick Stopfer	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Jacksonville, Florida	Lenny Curry	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Laredo, Texas	Pete Saenz	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Las Vegas, Nevada	Carolyn Goodman	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Lexington, Kentucky	Jim Gray	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Lincoln, Nebraska	Chris Beutler	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Louisville, Kentucky	Greg Fischer	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Lubbock, Texas	Dan Pope	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Madison, Wisconsin	Paul Soglin	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Memphis, Tennessee	Jim Strickland	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Mesa, Arizona	John Giles	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Miami, Florida	Tomás Regalado	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Milwaukee, Wisconsin	Tom Barrett	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Nashville, Tennessee	Megan Barry	Accepts ICE detainer requests
North Las Vegas, Nevada	John J. Lee	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma	Mick Cornett	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Omaha, Nebraska	Jean Stothert	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Orlando, Florida	Buddy Dyer	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Phoenix, Arizona	Greg Stanton	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania	Bill Peduto	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Plano, Texas	Harry LaRosiliere	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Raleigh, North Carolina	Nancy McFarlane	State law prohibits non-compliance with ICE detainer requests
Riverside, California	Rusty Bailey	Cooperates with ICE investigations
San Antonio, Texas	Ron Nirenberg	Accepts ICE detainer requests
San Diego, California	Kevin Faulconer	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Scottsdale, Arizona	Jim Lane	Accepts ICE detainer requests
St. Petersburg, Florida	Rick Kriseman	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Tampa, Florida	Bob Buckhorn	Cooperation with ICE investigations
Toledo, Ohio	Paula Hicks-Hudson	Cooperates with ICE investigations
Tucson, Arizona	Jonathan Rothschild	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Tulsa, Oklahoma	G. T. Bynum	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Virginia Beach, Virginia	Will Sessoms	Accepts ICE detainer requests
Winston-Salem, North Carolina	Allen Joines	State law prohibits non-compliance with ICE detainer requests

Counties

County sheriffs and commissioners influence law enforcement policies for municipalities beyond the cities documented in the previous tab. According to February 2017 data from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, 10 out of 17 counties covered by Ballotpedia did not accept detainer requests from ICE. Seven counties in Ballotpedia's coverage accepted detainer requests or cooperated with ICE in gathering information for deportation proceedings. In February 2017, the Miami-Dade County Commission voted 9-3 to change policy from not accepting all ICE requests to cooperating with ICE investigations.

School districts

• Districts
  • Aurora (CO)
  • Broward County (FL)
  • Chicago (IL)
  • Clark County (NV)
  • Christina (DE)
  • Dallas (TX)
  • Des Moines (IA)
  • Kansas City (KS)
  • Los Angeles (CA)
  • Milwaukee (WI)
  • Oakland (CA)
  • Pasadena (CA)
  • Portland (OR)
  • Sacramento Unified (CA)
  • Shawnee Mission (KS)

The following capsules document school districts covered by Ballotpedia that adopted or rejected policies regarding student information requests or on-campus actions by immigration officials as of 2017:

Aurora Public Schools, Colorado

See also: Aurora Public Schools, Colorado

The Aurora Public Schools Board of Education approved a resolution on May 16, 2017, reaffirming its policy of not sharing the immigration status information of students or parents with law enforcement officials. This resolution also encouraged district personnel to work with community and legal aid organizations to support families facing scrutiny over their immigration status. Board members cited the city's demographic diversity and compliance with the requirement to educate all children in the district regardless of their citizenship status as established in the 1982 United States Supreme Court case Plyler v. Doe.

Broward County Public Schools, Florida

See also: Broward County Public Schools, Florida

The Broward County school board approved a resolution in March 2017 restricting ICE access to district facilities without permission. The resolution establishes a policy whereby ICE is prohibited from entering schools, athletic facilities, or field trip sites without warrants. District policy also requires requests for access to district facilities to be handled by the school district's attorney. Board members also approved a resolution asking school administrators to work with community organizations to develop plans for students whose parents are deported.

Chicago Public Schools, Illinois

See also: Chicago Public Schools, Illinois

Chief education officer Janice Jackson instructed district principals to prevent ICE access to buildings, staff, and students without a criminal warrant in February 2017. Jackson also asked families of students to provide additional emergency contacts in case of arrests by federal immigration officials during school hours. In announcing the policy to district families, Jackson said, "We know that some families are concerned about sending their children to school at this time, but we firmly believe that the safest and most beneficial place for your children is a classroom alongside their fellow students where they can work toward a bright future."

Clark County School District, Nevada

See also: Clark County School District, Nevada

On January 26, 2017, the Clark County School Board voted 6-1 to reaffirm its policy of preventing distribution of student information regardless of a student's immigration status. Trustee Carolyn Edwards brought forward the resolution after parents and teachers expressed concerns about hostile classroom environments following the election of Donald Trump. U.S. Rep. Dina Titus (D) advocated the resolution, citing the need to create safe public places for students. Christine Garvey was the lone dissenting vote, though she did not comment on her reasons for opposing the measure.

Christina School District, Delaware

See also: Christina School District, Delaware

On February 14, 2017, the Christina Board of Education voted 4-3 against a proposal to approve a safe haven label for the district. John M. Young sponsored the measure, which would have required superintendent approval for ICE requests and prohibited teachers from asking students about their immigration status. Young said that his measure was introduced after hearing concerns from district families about the threat of deportation. George Evans echoed concerns by other opponents of the proposal that blocking access would conflict with existing district policies on cooperating with law enforcement officials. After the vote, Evans and Frederick Polaski said they would vote on a revised version of the measure.

Dallas Independent School District, Texas

See also: Dallas Independent School District, Texas

The Dallas Independent board of trustees unanimously approved a resolution on February 23, 2017, that designated the district campus as "Welcoming and Protective of all its students and their families to the fullest extent of the law." The resolution also directed the superintendent to ensure students are aware of post-high school opportunities, such as scholarships and internships, regardless of their immigration status. The resolution did not label the Dallas ISD a sanctuary district or include language that can "be construed to require an employee or agent of Dallas Independent School District to take any action in violation of federal or state law."

Des Moines Public Schools, Iowa

See also: Des Moines Public Schools, Iowa

The Des Moines Public Schools Board of Directors approved two resolutions on February 7, 2017, to prevent staff from asking about student immigration status and formalize its protocol for dealing with ICE requests. The protocol required the superintendent, in consultation with legal counsel, to determine the district's compliance with ICE access to schools. Board member Rob Barron said, "This action tonight is about good ethical governance that puts the needs of the whole first by acting to improve outcomes for those with a pronounced disadvantage." The board also passed a resolution asking state and federal officials to exempt DACA participants from future immigration restrictions.

Kansas City Public Schools, Kansas

See also: Kansas City Kansas Public Schools, Kansas

The Kansas City Board of Education voted 5-0 to pass a resolution stating that all students had the right to an education regardless of their immigration status or their family's immigration status on February 28, 2017. The resolution called for fair treatment of all students "without regard for race, ethnicity, citizenship, immigration status or national origin" and directed district staff to not inquire about a student's immigration status. The resolution also said that any request by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to access district property had to be processed by the superintendent, who was instructed to "consult with legal counsel to ensure compliance with the law."

Los Angeles Unified School District, California

See also: Los Angeles Unified School District, California

The Los Angeles Unified Board of Education voted to reaffirm the district's safe zone policy for students residing in the country without legal permission on November 15, 2016. The board also adopted a resolution pledging to “continue to protect the data and identities of any student, family member, or school employee who may be adversely affected by any future policies or executive action that results in the collection of any personally identifiable information.”

The board passed another two resolutions on December 13, 2016. One resolution asked President Barack Obama to “issue an executive order prohibiting the use of information derived from the DACA application and participation process for purposes other than originally intended, including for the purpose of removal or deportation.” It also asked the president to pardon “civil immigration violations for young immigrants that participated in DACA.”

The second resolution asked Trump's nominees for secretary of education and attorney general to "directly affirm the Obama administration’s guidance to states and local education authorities regarding the dignity and humanity of transgender students and access to safe restrooms, locker rooms and all school facilities.”

Milwaukee Public Schools, Wisconsin

See also: Milwaukee Public Schools, Wisconsin

Milwaukee Superintendent Darienne Driver sent a message to district families in February 2017 that promised to protect student information, including immigration status. In the message, Driver called Milwaukee Public Schools a "save haven of learning and support."

"We do not ask for students' immigration status when they enroll," Driver said in the message. "If we become aware of a student's immigration status, we will not share that information with the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services."

The Milwaukee Public Schools Board of Directors voted 8-0 on March 30, 2017, to make the district a safe haven for students regardless of immigration status. The resolution prohibits district staff and volunteers from assisting immigration officials with arrests.

Oakland Unified School District, California

See also: Oakland Unified School District, California

On December 14, 2016, the Oakland Unified School District Board of Education passed a measure guaranteeing equal access to education regardless of immigration status and requiring ICE requests be directed to the superintendent. The district passed a measure in 2008 committing the district to educate and provide services to all students. The 2016 measure expanded the previous policy by instructing staff members to refer students and parents with questions about immigration status to community groups rather than ICE. Staff members are also required to direct ICE requests for student information or access to students to the superintendent's office.

Pasadena Unified School District, California

See also: Pasadena Unified School District, California

The Pasadena Unified School District joined the Bassett Unified School District and the Los Angeles Unified School District in December 2016 by barring ICE agents from entering district property without a warrant. Superintendent Brian McDonald said the policy focused on calming student anxiety rather than making a political statement.

“This is not civil disobedience that we’re talking about, where we’re going to fight the federal government, that is not what this is about,” McDonald said. “But we want to make sure that families feel like their kids are safe when they come to us.”

Under the new policy, district employees cannot ask about immigration status or share information about immigration status unless they are compelled by law. The policy also stipulates that the district will publicly disclose any contact with the ICE. ICE policy designates schools as sensitive locations. Because of that designation, they are generally avoided, according to the ICE.

Portland Public Schools, Oregon

See also: Portland Public Schools, Oregon

The Portland Board of Education unanimously approved a November 2016 measure preventing federal officials from entering district schools without the approval of school administrators. This measure also required officials to show evidence of reasonable suspension in written documentation. The school board also instructed the superintendent to create training materials for teachers on handling situations where they are asked about students' immigration status.

Sacramento City Unified School District, California

See also: Sacramento City Unified School District, California

The Sacramento City Unified School Board of Education approved a January 2017 resolution requiring written approval by the superintendent before ICE officials could enter district facilities. The resolution also established restrictions on sharing student information with immigration officials. Following the measure, board President Jay Hansen said, "We took one early step by passing a resolution that made sure that everyone knows we are a safe-haven district, where we are not going to be a part of the enforcement of immigration laws. Our job is to educate every student who lives in our boundaries and assure that they can have a safe and productive education in Sacramento."

Shawnee Mission School District, Kansas

See also: Shawnee Mission School District, Kansas

The Shawnee Mission Board of Education approved a resolution on April 24, 2017, establishing a protocol for immigration and naturalization service employees to notify the superintendent of their presence before they enter a district building. The resolution also reaffirmed the district's policy to not ask about a student's immigration status and to not share student information without parental consent or a court order.

The board established the new protocol after the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Kansas sent a letter on April 19, 2017, asking members to review the district's policies related to police and immigration officers. The letter described an incident in which a student at the district's Briarwood Elementary School was handed into police custody on February 7, 2017. The student's mother had been detained by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, and officers from the Prairie Village Police Department escorted the student to the Division of Child and Family Services.

If students did not have a parent or approved adult to pick them up, it was the district's standard procedure to take them to the Division of Child and Family Services, according to 41 Action News. The ACLU of Kansas, however, said school officials did not contact the student's father or the emergency contacts listed in the student's file before handing the child over to police officers.

See also

• Sanctuary jurisdictions
• Sanctuary jurisdiction policies by state
• Federal policy on immigration, 2017-2020
• Deportation
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security
• Deferred Action for Parents of U.S. Citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA)
• Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)

External links

Suggest a link

• Congressional Research Service reports from 2009 and 2015