Which specific federal obstruction and harboring statutes have been used in prosecutions related to ICE operations?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal prosecutions tied to actions around ICE operations have most commonly invoked obstruction and related Title 18 offenses—especially 18 U.S.C. § 111 for assaulting or impeding federal officers and a suite of obstruction provisions in Chapter 73 of Title 18 (including prosecutions premised on 18 U.S.C. § 1503 and witness‑tampering provisions such as § 1512)—and immigration harboring statutes in Title 8, chiefly 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a) and its enforcement provisions in § 1324(c) [1] [2] [3] [4]. Reporting and practice show prosecutors layering these federal obstruction and harboring statutes, sometimes alongside conspiracy or false‑statement counts, to pursue individuals, employers, or officials alleged to have blocked or aided beneficiaries of ICE enforcement [5] [6].
1. The obstruction toolkit prosecutors use in ICE cases
Prosecutors litigating interference with ICE operations commonly rely on the obstruction chapter of Title 18 (Chapter 73), which encompasses statutes prosecutors have used to allege interference with federal officers and proceedings; recent reporting identifies 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (obstruction of justice) and witness‑tampering provisions such as § 1512 as recurring tools when alleging that protesters or others impeded agents or sought to prevent cooperation with enforcement actions [7] [2] [8]. Practitioners and defense firms describe a pattern of charging obstruction alongside assault‑on‑a‑federal‑officer counts when conduct shifted from verbal protest to physical interference, reflecting prosecutors’ preference for overlapping Title 18 theories to maximize charging options [5] [1].
2. Assault and resisting under 18 U.S.C. § 111: the go‑to statute for physical confrontations
When alleged conduct includes pushing against officers or vehicles, threatening or using force, federal prosecutors frequently invoke 18 U.S.C. § 111—criminalizing assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain federal officers—which carries enhanced penalties when force is used or injury results, and has been repeatedly cited in ICE protest prosecutions and advisories about risking federal charges during civil disobedience [1] [5] [6].
3. Harboring and aiding: the Title 8 statutes that reach helpers and employers
Separate from Title 18 obstruction tools, federal immigration statutes in Title 8 are used to prosecute those who shelter, transport, or otherwise “harbor” noncitizens to shield them from detection; 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(A) is the central harboring provision prosecutors use, with § 1324(c) authorizing arrest powers and underpinning criminal enforcement actions tied to smuggling or harboring aliens [3] [4]. Employers and third parties have been charged under § 1324 for knowingly or recklessly harboring undocumented workers, with statutory penalties that can include significant prison terms and fines—reporting cites examples of restaurant owners charged after ICE raids [3] [6].
4. How charging strategies overlap and why officials push expansive interpretations
Charging decisions in ICE‑related incidents often layer Title 18 obstruction counts, § 111 assault counts, Title 8 harboring counts, and ancillary conspiracy or false‑statement offenses to give prosecutors multiple pathways to conviction and leverage in plea bargaining [5] [6]. Political and enforcement priorities shape this trend: some administration officials have signaled intent to use harboring and obstruction statutes broadly against noncooperative state and local actors, and commentators warn that expansive readings of these statutes can chill cooperation with courts and public services [9].
5. Limits of available reporting and competing perspectives
The sources establish which statutes prosecutors have used—§ 111, obstruction statutes in Chapter 73 (including § 1503 and § 1512 as reported), and 8 U.S.C. § 1324 and § 1324(c)—and note penalties and prosecutorial tendencies, but the reporting does not provide a comprehensive docket‑level census of every statute ever applied in every ICE matter; therefore, while these statutes are demonstrably central in reported prosecutions and advisories, there may be additional Title 18 or Title 8 provisions used in specific cases not captured in the cited material [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Opponents of expansive prosecutions argue the statutes are being stretched to punish political dissent and to pressure local actors, an implicit enforcement agenda flagged in commentary about federal efforts to broaden use of harboring and obstruction charges [9].