Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Can local police departments refuse to cooperate with ICE residential raids?
Executive summary
Local jurisdictions generally can choose whether to assist federal immigration agents in residential raids; there is no blanket federal law forcing local police to participate, though some states or localities have statutes or agreements that require or incentivize cooperation such as 287(g) deputizations (no federal mandate) [1] [2]. In 2025 many cities and states moved either to limit cooperation (Providence, Bridgeport, Center Line and proposed Maryland legislation) or to expand/join ICE programs, creating a patchwork of rules and real-world variation [3] [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. Who decides: local choice versus federal authority
Local police departments are not uniformly compelled by federal law to take part in ICE residential raids; immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility and the available fact-checking reporting says “No” to a federal requirement that localities must participate [1]. That said, federal tools—like 287(g) agreements that deputize local officers or transfer arrangements for people in jails—create pathways for more local participation when a locality signs on [2] [7].
2. How cooperation happens in practice: formal contracts, deputization, and informal assistance
There are multiple mechanisms for cooperation. Formal written programs such as 287(g) certify and authorize local officers to perform certain immigration tasks under ICE supervision; separate local contracts or memoranda of understanding can let police arrest or transfer suspected noncitizens from jails to ICE custody [2] [7]. Informal operational partnerships — joint task forces, co‑deployment, or on‑scene coordination — also occur and were visible in recent arrests that raised local concerns [8].
3. The legal and political limits states and cities can impose
States and municipalities have used laws, ordinances and policies to limit cooperation. Several localities have adopted “sanctuary” or trust‑act style measures that limit when police share data or honor ICE detainers; the Migration Policy Institute maps and other reporting document states and localities that legally restrict cooperation [2]. City councils in Bridgeport and Providence have recently moved to formalize limits on police interactions with ICE, although reporting notes some city proposals duplicate existing state protections [4] [3].
4. Where rules clash: states that require cooperation and federal pressure
Not all places can or will limit cooperation. Some state governments have passed laws requiring local officers to assist with transferring or identifying people for ICE, and some local officials say state or federal pressure — including threats to funding — can change local calculus [2] [9]. Arizona’s 2024 ballot change and other state moves illustrate that states can expand local enforcement duties even while other cities restrict them [1].
5. Real‑world examples showing variation
Local action has been mixed in 2025: Center Line, Michigan rescinded an ICE cooperation authorization for its officers and Providence’s council amended local law to deter police interactions with ICE after officers were seen at an ICE arrest [5] [3]. Conversely, analyses show rapid expansion of 287(g) participation in many jurisdictions, notably Florida, demonstrating the divergent trajectories across the country [7] [2].
6. Practical consequences for police, communities and legality
Officials who decline cooperation argue it preserves community trust and public safety by encouraging reporting and witness cooperation; advocates warn entanglement with ICE reduces trust [10]. Conversely, proponents of cooperation argue it helps federal enforcement of immigration laws and can be framed as public‑safety policy; state laws and federal programs have been used to push that framing [9] [2]. Courts and oversight bodies can intervene when local police violate their own ordinances or when civil‑rights claims arise, which is part of why municipalities are formalizing policies [3].
7. What reporting does not settle
Available sources do not mention a single, overarching federal statute enacted in 2025 that compels every local police department to participate in ICE residential raids; the situation is instead governed by a mix of voluntary federal programs, state laws, local ordinances and political pressure [1] [2]. Detailed legal outcomes — such as pending court rulings that might change obligations in specific jurisdictions — are not covered by the provided reporting (not found in current reporting).
8. Bottom line for local officials and residents
Local police can often refuse to take part in ICE residential raids unless bound by state law, formal agreements (like 287(g)), or specific contractual obligations; this leads to significant variation across jurisdictions and ongoing legislative and political fights — exemplified by recent bills and council actions in Maryland, Providence, Bridgeport and Michigan [6] [3] [4] [5]. Residents should check local ordinances and state statutes to understand the rules that apply in their city or county [2] [4].