Can local police departments refuse to cooperate with ICE requests?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive Summary
Local police departments in the United States can and do refuse to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requests in many jurisdictions, but the legal and practical landscape is fragmented: some cities explicitly bar cooperation through policies or ordinances, while many counties and sheriffs continue information-sharing that enables ICE detainers and transfers. The outcome for individuals depends on local laws, departmental policies, state actions, and informal practices that vary widely across municipalities and over time [1] [2] [3] [4] [5].
1. Why some cities say “No” — sanctuary policies and executive orders that limit cooperation
Cities such as Providence and Portland have taken formal steps to limit local law enforcement’s role in immigration enforcement, with mayoral executive orders and police bureau guidance instructing officers not to act as immigration agents and to avoid using local resources to assist ICE [1] [2]. These policies are presented as public-safety measures designed to encourage community trust and reporting of crimes; city councils have moved to codify such norms into ordinances that would legally restrict city employees and police from handing over information or actively assisting federal immigration officials [3]. Advocates argue these limits are both lawful and necessary to protect community policing goals [5].
2. How cooperation still happens — jails, detainers, and information sharing that feed ICE operations
Despite sanctuary policies in some municipalities, county jails and sheriff’s departments frequently share inmate information with ICE and have historically honored ICE detainers or holds, creating a pathway for civil immigration arrests and deportations even after bond payments or release decisions by local courts [4]. Reporting shows that ICE uses jail booking and sharing systems as a “dragnet” to locate people for civil immigration proceedings; in Florida, for example, detainers surged and led to deportations tied to local-county practices, illustrating how cooperation at the corrections level can undermine municipal noncooperation policies [4].
3. The legal limits and discretion — what law says and what local agencies can decide
Federal law does not force local police to act as immigration enforcers; courts and statutes limit compelled participation, but legal gray areas remain around detainers, information privacy, and conditional funding. Local agencies exercise discretion: some interpret federal requests as mandatory when tied to court orders or immigration warrants, while others treat ICE detainers as voluntary requests and refuse to hold people beyond release times without a judicial warrant. Litigation and state statutes have shaped this patchwork, so refusal to cooperate is both a policy choice and a legal stance that can be challenged or constrained [5] [4].
4. Real-world impact — stories showing both noncooperation and harmful cooperation
On-the-ground reporting shows divergent consequences: in some places immigrant communities feel safe calling police under sanctuary assurances, while in other communities families experienced deportations after routine traffic stops or jail processing because local practices fed ICE’s efforts [2] [6] [4]. Cases like the Bradenton family’s account highlight how county-level sharing and detainer compliance led to deportation even where bonds were paid, contrasting with Portland and Providence messaging that emphasizes noncooperation to preserve trust and reporting [4] [1] [2].
5. Advocacy, trust, and lawsuits — reasons departments refuse or resist cooperation
Advocacy groups push local police to refuse ICE requests on public-safety and civil-rights grounds, warning that collaboration undermines trust, deters crime reporting, and exposes agencies to legal liability and costly lawsuits for civil-rights violations [5]. Municipal leaders frame noncooperation as a cost-saving and community-protective strategy; opponents argue it can hamper enforcement of federal law and public-safety priorities. This tension explains why some jurisdictions strengthen ordinances and training while others prioritize close cooperation with ICE [5] [3].
6. Political and administrative pressure — why policies can change quickly
Local policies are vulnerable to shifts in mayoral administrations, county sheriffs, state laws, and federal priorities; policy reversals or increased ICE activity can quickly alter outcomes. The spike in ICE detainers observed in Florida and related deportations illustrates how national-level enforcement surges influence local practices, regardless of municipal statements. Political agendas—whether pro-sanctuary municipal leadership or state-level mandates favoring cooperation—shape whether departments refuse or comply, highlighting the role of elected officeholders and administrative decisions in determining local posture [4] [3].
7. Bottom line for residents: it depends where you are and what agency you encounter
For individuals, the decisive factors are the specific city, county, and jail policies they encounter: some local police will refuse ICE requests, some will cooperate, and many outcomes hinge on whether detainers are treated as mandatory or voluntary. Community members should consult local municipal ordinances, police bureau policies, and county jail practices to understand risks; advocacy groups and city guidance frequently provide resources outlining local rules, but the practical reality can diverge at booking and detention points [1] [2] [4].
8. What to watch next — litigation, ordinances, and enforcement trends that will reshape cooperation
Future changes will come through court rulings on detainers, new municipal ordinances, state preemption laws, and federal enforcement directives, all of which will further define when and how local police can refuse ICE. Tracking recent local legislation, high-profile deportation cases stemming from jail cooperation, and administrative orders from city leaders will indicate whether noncooperation norms solidify or erode; stakeholders on both sides will continue using litigation and political advocacy to press for durable, enforceable rules [3] [4] [5].