In early December, as the federal government began ramping up immigration enforcement operations in the Twin Cities, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey took a cue from Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, who had signed an executive order for what he called an “ICE Free Zone” during Operation Midway Blitz last year. Frey issued a similar executive order—later codified into city ordinance—barring United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from using municipal parking lots, vacant lots, and garages as staging grounds for immigration enforcement. City leaders described the measure as a necessary step to protect the city’s Somali population and reject the administration’s “fear-based tactics.”

Frey’s timing proved apt. Weeks later, thousands of federal agents descended on Minnesota under Operation Metro Surge—the largest immigration enforcement deployment of the second Trump administration—amid large-scale raids, courthouse arrests across the country, and the tragic killings of peaceful protesters Renée Nicole Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents. As these actions unfold in plain view, local officials nationwide are learning from leaders in cities like Minneapolis how to find ways to protect their residents while meaningfully limiting the scope and harms of federal immigration enforcement.

What Are ICE-Free Zones?

A growing number of jurisdictions are responding to out-of-control immigration enforcement by adopting ICE-free zone policies. These are land-use and administrative policies that limit federal agencies from using city- or county-owned property as staging areas, processing sites for arrests, or operational bases for civil immigration enforcement. By doing so, localities can disrupt the infrastructure for large-scale raids, reassert local control over public property, protect residents from enforcement activity, and reinforce trust between immigrant communities and local government.

Given localities’ limited means for resisting federal overreach, these policies have quickly sprung up across the country. In practice, they may be more symbolic than impactful against a supercharged, lawless immigration operation. But even throwing sand in the gears of federal operations matters, as their speed and force have enabled the trampling of due process and other legal protections. Moreover, these policies signal to immigrant communities that the local government is on their side. Alongside other emerging practices—like broader sanctuary policies, investments in deportation defense, and resistance to new detention facilities—they begin to amount to robust opposition.

Read the full article about ICE-free zones by Sam FeinehSam Feineh at Vera Institute of JusticeIn early December, as the federal government began ramping up immigration enforcement operations in the Twin Cities, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey took a cue from Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson, who had signed an executive order for what he called an “ICE Free Zone” during Operation Midway Blitz last year. Frey issued a similar executive order—later codified into city ordinance—barring United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from using municipal parking lots, vacant lots, and garages as staging grounds for immigration enforcement. City leaders described the measure as a necessary step to protect the city’s Somali population and reject the administration’s “fear-based tactics.” Frey’s timing proved apt. Weeks later, thousands of federal agents descended on Minnesota under Operation Metro Surge—the largest immigration enforcement deployment of the second Trump administration—amid large-scale raids, courthouse arrests across the country, and the tragic killings of peaceful protesters Renée Nicole Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents. As these actions unfold in plain view, local officials nationwide are learning from leaders in cities like Minneapolis how to find ways to protect their residents while meaningfully limiting the scope and harms of federal immigration enforcement. What are ICE-free zones? A growing number of jurisdictions are responding to out-of-control immigration enforcement by adopting ICE-free zone policies. These are land-use and administrative policies that limit federal agencies from using city- or county-owned property as staging areas, processing sites for arrests, or operational bases for civil immigration enforcement. By doing so, localities can disrupt the infrastructure for large-scale raids, reassert local control over public property, protect residents from enforcement activity, and reinforce trust between immigrant communities and local government. Given localities’ limited means for resisting federal overreach, these policies have quickly sprung up across the country. In practice, they may be more symbolic than impactful against a supercharged, lawless immigration operation. But even throwing sand in the gears of federal operations matters, as their speed and force have enabled the trampling of due process and other legal protections. Moreover, these policies signal to immigrant communities that the local government is on their side. Alongside other emerging practices—like broader sanctuary policies, investments in deportation defense, and resistance to new detention facilities—they begin to amount to robust opposition. Crucially, ICE-free zone policies do not prohibit ICE or CBP from making arrests. They expressly avoid interfering with the legal rights of federal law enforcement while clarifying that federal authorities can conduct arrests on city property when supported by a judicial warrant. This framing matters for two reasons. It signals to courts that local governments are not attempting to illegally obstruct federal immigration enforcement. And, more significantly, warrant requirements reinforce lawful enforcement practices. Over the past year, ICE has increasingly relied on so-called “administrative warrants”—signed by ICE officials, not judges—to forcibly enter homes and arrest people despite long-standing Fourth Amendment protections and decades of agency guidance to the contrary. ICE also sometimes makes arrests with no warrant at all. By requiring judicial warrants, ICE-free zones attempt to push ICE back into targeted enforcement, as opposed to roving the streets looking for people to arrest..