What are the legal limits and municipal ordinances that govern cooperation between city police departments and ICE, and how have Minneapolis policies changed post‑2025?
Executive summary
Minneapolis now operates under a strengthened municipal “separation” regime that forbids many forms of tactical support to federal immigration enforcement, codified by a 2025 executive order and subsequent ordinance updates that bar ICE from staging on city property and make MPD non‑participatory in routine ICE operations [1] [2]. That local firewall exists alongside federal supremacy in immigration law, recent state legislative pushes to compel cooperation, and competing legal actions from both the city and civil‑liberties groups that together have turned Minneapolis into a live test of the constitutional and policy limits on local–federal law‑enforcement cooperation [3] [4] [5].
1. What legally governs cooperation between city police and ICE: federal supremacy, civil‑rights law, and local policy
Immigration enforcement is a federal function, and federal agencies retain broad statutory authority and constitutional claims to carry out arrests and removals, but local agencies control their own employees and resources and thus can limit municipal cooperation by ordinance, policy, or executive order — a practical limit reflected in Minneapolis’ steps to bar use of city property for ICE staging and to make compliance with MPD policy mandatory under city discipline rules [1]. Federal law and Supreme Court precedent remain background constraints (as federal officers operate under federal use‑of‑force and arrest standards noted by DOJ policy and case law), and the tension between those federal powers and local non‑cooperation frequently lands in courtrooms and political arenas rather than in undisputed legal clarity [6] [7].
2. The municipal “separation” ordinance: what Minneapolis actually changed after 2025
The City Council in late 2025 revised a two‑decade separation ordinance to strengthen protections for immigrant communities, expressly prohibiting ICE from staging on city‑owned lots and ramps (an executive order by Mayor Frey that was codified) and clarifying that MPD will not escort ICE agents or provide crowd control absent a clear, immediate threat — while still allowing collaboration with federal agencies on federal investigations into serious crimes such as drug‑ or human‑trafficking and RICO prosecutions [1] [2] [8]. The revisions were advanced after months of public testimony and internal MPD review tied to consent‑decree reforms; the city framed the changes as preserving public safety while reducing fear in immigrant communities [2] [8].
3. How Minneapolis enforces and implements those limits inside MPD
MPD made compliance with the revised immigration policy and the separation ordinance mandatory, subject to discipline, and supplemented the ordinance with revised training and public guidance on what officers may and may not do when federal agents operate in the city [1] [8]. The department’s consent decree with the Department of Justice in January 2025 — aimed at use‑of‑force and constitutional policing reforms — shaped training and messaging that emphasize intervention duties and protection of First Amendment activity, factors the city says inform when MPD will or won’t respond to ICE‑related incidents [8] [6].
4. Countervailing pressures: state bills, federal rhetoric, and litigation
The local firewall has met immediate pushback: a proposed Minnesota bill in 2025 would bar agencies from forbidding employee information‑sharing with ICE and would force county attorneys to report certain arrests to federal authorities, an attempt state lawmakers framed as restoring cooperation and public safety [4]. The federal Department of Homeland Security criticized Mayor Frey’s policies as “sanctuary” failures [9], while the city and state attorney general have sued DHS over a massive federal “Operation Metro Surge,” arguing the influx of ICE/CBP agents violates state constitutional principles and imposes local costs [3]. At the same time, civil‑liberties groups have sued federal agencies for alleged constitutional violations during the surge, illustrating competing legal strategies on both sides [5].
5. Practical tradeoffs and the politics behind the law
City leaders and MPD advocates stress that the ordinance protects community trust and reporting of crime, while critics — including some state and federal officials and DHS communications — argue limits endanger public safety by hindering information sharing that could remove violent offenders [2] [9] [4]. Police‑professional commentary warns that refusing tactical cooperation can complicate federal‑local investigations and post‑incident coordination, especially after high‑profile use‑of‑force events, underscoring the operational risk that underlies a largely political dispute [6]. Minneapolis’ post‑2025 posture therefore reflects a deliberate legal gamble: using municipal authority over property, discipline, and policy to erect a firewall while simultaneously litigating the limits of federal incursions and preparing for state and federal pushback [1] [3].