What legal steps can a tribal nation take to formalize limits on ICE activity (e.g., compact, ordinance, litigation)?
Executive summary
Tribal nations have several legal and policy tools to formalize limits on ICE activity: negotiate government-to-government agreements or refuse them, pass tribal ordinances and workplace policies asserting protections for citizens on tribal lands, and pursue litigation or emergency court orders to enforce sovereignty and challenge unlawful enforcement actions [1] [2]. Recent incidents across multiple states have spurred tribes to combine immediate administrative steps—IDs, hotlines, public guidance—with formal legal measures and demands for consultation with federal authorities [3] [4] [5].
1. Negotiate—or explicitly refuse—government-to-government compacts and assurances
A foundational route is formal negotiation with the Department of Homeland Security or ICE to create written accords that define whether and how ICE will operate on tribal lands, what notice or consultation is required, and guarantees about enrolled citizens; several tribal leaders have demanded written assurances and government-to-government consultation after detentions, and some tribes have publicly rejected ICE’s conditioning of information on entering agreements [1] [6] [5]. Refusing to enter compacts is itself a legal and political stance: the Oglala Sioux Tribe publicly stated it had no plans to enter an agreement with ICE while demanding consultation and information about detained members [6].
2. Adopt tribal ordinances and administrative policies asserting limits and protocols
Tribal councils can pass ordinances that assert tribal sovereignty, restrict entry to tribal property by non-consensual federal enforcement absent valid warrants, require tribal notification when federal agents operate on reservation land, and set penalties or administrative prohibitions for violations; tribes across Michigan, Wisconsin, Oklahoma and North Dakota have issued guidance advising members about IDs, to report ICE presence to tribal police, and to rely on tribal identification—demonstrating immediate policy responses that can be codified into ordinances [3] [7] [8] [4]. Tribes can also require tribal enterprises and employers to have written ICE-response protocols and I-9 compliance practices to protect workers and limit ad hoc cooperation with federal agents [2].
3. Use identification, hotlines, signage and informational measures to operationalize limits
Practical, low-cost formal steps include issuing tribal ID cards (including for off-reservation members), creating designated telephone lines for legal support, distributing “no entry without warrant” door signs, and publishing FAQs on rights and how to respond to ICE—measures already being deployed by multiple nations that can be backed by tribal resolution or code to create enforceable expectations and record evidence of federal noncompliance [3] [9] [4] [10].
4. Pursue litigation and emergency court relief to enforce sovereignty and limit tactics
When negotiations and ordinances are insufficient, tribes and advocacy groups can sue to vindicate treaty rights and sovereign protections or seek injunctive relief against particular ICE tactics—recent federal rulings have, for example, limited crowd-control tools used by DHS in Minneapolis after an ICE-related shooting, illustrating how courts can constrain federal operations pending fuller review [11]. Legal organizations like the Native American Rights Fund are positioning to support litigation and to document alleged unlawful detentions, and tribes have sent memoranda and formal demands to DHS as precursors to judicial action [12] [5].
5. Build coalitions, document incidents, and weigh political tradeoffs
Legal steps are sharpened by public pressure and coordination with other tribal nations, Congressional allies, and advocacy groups; lawmakers in the Native American Caucus have called for investigations and full consultation with tribes, signaling a legislative and oversight avenue alongside litigation [13]. However, entering agreements can carry tradeoffs—some tribes fear compacts will legitimize ICE presence or condition transparency from federal agencies—so tribes must weigh immediate access to information and safeguards against long-term policy entanglement [1] [6]. Documentation—recording encounters, collecting IDs, and preserving evidence—strengthens later claims and helps partners like NARF provide legal support [14] [12].