Have any tribes enacted laws or agreements to limit ICE activity on their territory?
Executive summary
Some tribes have explicitly refused ICE requests to use tribal facilities and have issued guidance to protect members, but available reporting shows largely reactive measures (IDs, warnings, refusal to house detainees) rather than formal blanket laws banning ICE activity on tribal lands (not found in current reporting) [1] [2] [3]. Examples: the Nisqually Tribal Council publicly said it will not house ICE detainees and has “no plans” to enter detention agreements [1]; multiple tribes have urged members to carry tribal IDs and report ICE encounters [2] [4].
1. Tribal pushback: refusals to host ICE detainees
Several tribal governments have told federal authorities “no” when asked to provide detention space. The Nisqually Tribal Council stated it will not house ICE detainees, saying it has no agreements or plans to enter contracts to detain immigrants and that a staff member had communicated with ICE without council authorization [1] [5]. Coverage frames that refusal as an assertion of tribal values and sovereignty: Nisqually leadership called detention requests inconsistent with tribal commitments to dignity and compassion [1].
2. Practical, short-term steps: IDs, hotlines and guidance
Tribes across the country have issued advisories urging members to carry tribal IDs, record encounters, demand warrants at home, and report ICE activity to tribal police or offices — rather than relying on new tribal criminal statutes to bar federal action [2] [6] [4]. The Navajo Nation set up a hotline and touted communication with state and federal public-safety officials as its immediate response to reports of detentions [3] [7]. Some tribes temporarily waived fees for issuing or replacing tribal IDs to reduce vulnerability [2].
3. Sovereignty claims vs. federal authority: competing legal realities
Tribes repeatedly assert that they are sovereign nations and that federal agents lack jurisdiction over tribal members on reservations; Tulalip’s public statement said “ICE has no authority over the Tulalip Tribes or our members” [8]. Legal experts and organizations note limits on ICE conduct in Indian Country — for example, ICE generally needs warrants to enter some workplaces and tribal-lands legal status can affect enforcement — but the law is unsettled and practice varies by treaty, land status and circumstance [9]. Senate letters and congressional requests have urged DHS to clarify how ICE should respect tribal IDs and consult with tribes [10].
4. Why tribes are acting: documented incidents and fear of profiling
Reporting documents episodes where tribal members were detained or questioned by ICE, and high-profile encounters (such as the detention of actress Elaine Miles) have intensified fears and prompted official responses [11] [12]. Navajo and other tribal leaders reported members were detained in immigration operations, prompting warnings and guidance to citizens [7] [3]. Coverage says some encounters reflected agents’ lack of familiarity with tribal IDs or presumptive profiling based on appearance or language [12] [13].
5. What reporting does not show: formal tribal laws outlawing ICE activity
Available sources document tribal statements, refusals to enter detention contracts, advisories, and operational engagement with ICE — but do not report tribes passing comprehensive statutes that categorically bar ICE activity on reservations or that criminalize federal enforcement there (not found in current reporting). Instead, tribes are using sovereignty claims, administrative refusals, local law-enforcement reporting channels, and federal engagement to try to limit or shape ICE conduct [1] [9] [3].
6. Two perspectives in tension: tribal sovereignty vs. federal enforcement needs
Tribal leaders and advocates press for government-to-government respect, improved ICE training on tribal IDs, and consultation — arguing federal agents must recognize tribal IDs and jurisdictional boundaries [10] [12]. Federal immigration enforcement operates under national statutes that enforce immigration law across jurisdictions, and legal commentators caution that enforcement powers may still apply depending on treaties, land status, and statutory exceptions; they recommend tribes consult counsel and negotiate protections where possible [9].
7. What to watch next
Monitor whether tribes move from advisories and ad hoc refusals to negotiated, written agreements or memoranda of understanding with DHS that specify limits, or whether federal guidance or congressional action clarifies ICE conduct around tribal IDs and reservations [10] [9]. Also watch litigation or formal tribal ordinances — current reporting documents refusals and guidance but does not show enacted tribal laws that categorically block ICE activity (not found in current reporting).
Limitations: reporting in these sources focuses on tribal statements, advisories and refusals and cites legal uncertainty; they do not provide a comprehensive inventory of every tribe’s ordinances, so absence of reported laws in this sample does not mean no tribe has enacted one elsewhere (not found in current reporting).