When Law Enforcement Meets ICE: How a Loss of Local Autonomy Puts Public Safety at Risk

When a police officer arrests someone, they often access the National Crime Information Center (NCIC), a centralized database managed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), to check for warrants and other criminal information. They also submit fingerprints to the FBI’s Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) for an automated criminal history check. Under information-sharing programs–previously known as Secure Communities–those fingerprints are automatically checked against Department of Homeland Security Immigration databases.  If there is a “hit,” ICE can be notified. This is where the state criminal legal system and federal immigration enforcement collide. 

Using the NCIC database to flag a person for immigration enforcement can impact whether community members call 911, whether a minor traffic stop becomes a pipeline to federal immigration detention, or whether due process protections actually mean anything in practice. The Center for Policing Equity’s new white paper, titled, Cooperation Between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, explores if and where cooperation between local law enforcement agencies (LEAs) and ICE is required, and how communities can assert lawful, evidence-based autonomy over their public safety systems.

Why Community Autonomy Matters Now More Than Ever

Recent federal tactics have ramped up pressure on local LEAs to conform and comply with federal immigration enforcement efforts. However, the courts continue to enforce constitutional guardrails that place limits on federal “commandeering” of local resources. In light of increased pressure from the federal government, many jurisdictions are expanding sanctuary-style safeguards, such as requiring a judicial warrant for cooperation or providing funding for immigrant legal defense. Yet, data sharing workarounds and informal practices persist, often out of public view. The result of these loopholes is a confusing landscape in which policy choices carry real consequences for public safety, community trust, and constitutional protections. Our paper maps out the current landscape and provides actionable recommendations for local elected officials, oversight bodies, and community coalitions to protect public safety and the rights of community members.

What Does Cooperation Look Like Between Law Enforcement and ICE

1. The spectrum of cooperation: Not all cooperation is created equal. Judicial warrants, issued by judges based on probable cause, are mandatory. As such, local LEAs must comply with and honor judicial warrants. On the other hand, ICE administrative warrants and detainers or immigration holds, are requests, not court orders. Local LEAs can expose themselves to liability if they treat ICE administrative warrants and detainers as mandatory without independent legal basis. 
2. Voluntary is not always voluntary: Political pressure, perceived funding risks, and local LEA policies can make voluntary cooperation seem mandatory. Moreover, 287(g) agreements, informal communication between local LEA officers and federal immigration enforcement agents, and data sharing can extend cooperation far beyond what is required by law. 
3. Federal levers of coercion: Recent federal actions seek to exert considerable leverage over local decision-making in immigration enforcement, all while attempting to not overtly violate the 10th Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine, which prevents the federal government from compelling states to enforce federal laws. “Name and shame” lists, threats of withholding federal funding, mandatory immigration detention requirements, and charging strategies that convert ICE detainers into judicial warrants are all tools utilized by the federal government to take over local processes.
4. Constitutional guardrails: The 10th Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine, the 4th Amendment’s limits on detention, and the Spending Clause constraints on federal grant conditions are all legal boundaries on the federal government. Despite these constitutional guardrails, overcompliance by local jurisdictions in gray areas can expose them to lawsuits, audit findings, and grant clawbacks. Our white paper outlines case law and state level protections that keep local control intact. 
5. Emerging trends: As some jurisdictions are limiting their cooperation with federal enforcement efforts, ICE is relying more heavily on courthouse arrests, public sweeps, and data sharing workarounds. These shifts suggest that future cooperation between ICE and LEAs will depend on innovative federal tactics and how local jurisdictions respond to them.

How Law Enforcement and ICE Collaboration Impacts Public Safety

Public safety relies on community trust. When a seemingly minor traffic violation, agreeing to a witness interview, or a call to 911 could place individuals in the path of federal immigration enforcement, reporting drops and community harm can go unchecked. The intersection between federal immigration enforcement and state legal systems shapes whether community members feel safe reporting crimes, whether racial disparities and collateral consequences intensify, and whether due-process rights are protected. Some things that can be done now to make communities safer include: 

1. Audit cooperation: Commission periodic audits of ICE/LEA cooperation through entities such as city councils, public safety committees, and civilian oversight bodies.
2. Clearly define legal boundaries at all levels: Terminate and prohibit 287(g) agreements at the state level; require tracking and quarterly reporting of all ICE and any other federal immigration enforcement requests at the city and county levels; and have LEAs restrict state courthouse immigration enforcement assistance.
3. Build fiscal firewalls: Local governments should maintain separate budgets specifically appropriated for local public safety to prevent local funds from becoming repurposed for federal immigration enforcement.
4. Evidence-based reframing of the narrative: Use local data such as violent crime rates, reporting rates, and detention costs to evaluate whether detainer compliance actually improves public safety. Share these findings publicly to replace rhetoric with results.

Local jurisdictions and LEAs can define their relationship with federal immigration enforcement. The question isn’t necessarily whether local LEAs must cooperate in federal immigration enforcement. Rather, the question is how local LEAs choose to cooperate, if at all, on what terms, and with what safeguards to ensure public trust and equity.          

Related Resources from the Center for Policing Equity:     

• Cooperation Between U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies