How have state and local 'sensitive locations' policies limited ICE enforcement at hospitals, schools, and places of worship?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
State and local “sensitive locations” policies have been used to limit where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) conducts civil enforcement by barring or discouraging operations at hospitals, schools and places of worship, but their power is uneven: federal DHS/ICE guidance creates nonbinding protections that agencies can override and recent federal rollbacks have left legal gaps that states and counties are trying to fill [1] [2] [3]. Local actions—from Los Angeles County’s move to formalize “ICE‑free” county property to state proposals in New York, Vermont and elsewhere—seek to make those limits harder to pierce, yet they face legal uncertainty and practical limits when federal agents cite exigent circumstances or claim federal supremacy [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].
1. Federal baseline: guidance that once restrained — and can still be consulted
For years DHS and ICE issued memoranda instructing officers to generally avoid enforcement at “sensitive locations” such as schools, hospitals and places of worship, and to consult legal counsel before acting in those spaces; those documents were guidance, not law, giving ICE discretion to proceed in exigent circumstances or with supervisory approval [1] [2] [9]. The existence of that guidance meant many local agencies treated these locations as off‑limits in practice, but because the memos were nonstatutory they could be rescinded or revised; advocacy groups note that a 2025 rescission removed those explicit protections and created uncertainty about whether such places remain shielded [3] [1].
2. Local and state pushback: ordinances, statutes and messaging
In response to heightened federal enforcement and high‑profile incidents, jurisdictions moved to codify protections: Los Angeles County directed attorneys to draft an ordinance banning use of county property as ICE staging or processing sites and to mark facilities as unavailable for non‑county operations, a policy framed as protecting access to care at county hospitals and clinics [4] [5]. Governors and state legislatures have advanced measures requiring warrants for civil enforcement at sensitive sites, limiting data sharing with ICE, or creating statutory “sensitive locations” where state actors won’t assist federal enforcement—New York’s governor proposed requiring judicial warrants and New Jersey passed laws tightening data and assistance rules [6] [8].
3. Limits in practice: federal prerogative, exigency and mixed court responses
Even where local rules exist, ICE maintains it can act in sensitive locations when exigent circumstances exist or a supervisory official approves, and courts have rendered mixed decisions when federal supremacy and immigration enforcement collide with state limits—leaving enforcement outcomes unpredictable and litigation likely where local ordinances run up against federal operations [2] [10] [7]. State attorneys general and legislative counsel have warned that attempts to bar federal officers from certain conduct will trigger complex constitutional questions under the Supremacy Clause and federal statutes, and that practical enforcement of bans (for example, preventing federal agents from entering county premises) may itself be limited [7] [10].
4. Organizational tactics and practical protections on the ground
Hospitals, churches and nonprofits have adopted operational measures to insulate private or sensitive spaces—posting signage, designating private areas, limiting access, and enforcing entry rules—approaches that legal guidance says can strengthen an argument that certain rooms are not open to ICE without a warrant, although signs and policies are not ironclad shields if agents cite public‑access areas or exigency [11] [12]. Local “sanctuary” school district policies likewise supplement protections by refusing to collect or share immigration data and by setting protocols for responding to law‑enforcement requests, but such local policies rely on cooperation from staff and do not directly bind federal actors [10].
5. Politics, litigation and the next chapter
The patchwork response—counties creating “ICE‑free” zones, governors proposing warrant requirements, and states limiting information sharing—is both policy and political signal: it seeks to protect access to health care, education and worship while challenging federal policy direction, but it almost certainly invites court fights and will produce a churn of litigation and operational negotiation between local officials and ICE [4] [6] [8]. Where federal memos have been rescinded and the administration signals broader enforcement, the primary practical constraint on ICE currently comes from local refusal to assist and from making it politically and legally costly for agents to operate in those spaces, not from a binding federal prohibition [3] [1] [10].
Conclusion
State and local sensitive‑location policies have meaningfully constrained where ICE operates by denying cooperation, creating signage and protocols, and writing ordinances that make use of public facilities for enforcement more difficult, but those measures do not eliminate ICE’s ability to conduct civil enforcement in hospitals, schools and houses of worship when federal agents invoke exigent circumstances or federal authority; the result is a contested, litigated, and evolving landscape where local protections blunt but do not fully bar federal action [4] [2] [3] [1] [10].