What does Minneapolis’s 2003 separation ordinance actually say and how has it been applied?
Executive summary
Minneapolis’s original 2003 separation ordinance bars city employees from using city resources to enforce civil immigration law and limits immigration-status inquiries, a policy the city says is meant to protect public safety and trust with immigrant communities [1] [2]. The ordinance has been actively implemented through MPD training and city policy, and was revised in 2025 to codify a mayoral ban on federal “staging” on city property and to add reporting requirements when Minneapolis Police collaborate with federal authorities [3] [4] [5].
1. What the ordinance actually says: a short text summary
The ordinance formally separates municipal functions from civil immigration enforcement by prohibiting use of city personnel and resources to investigate, arrest, or detain people solely for alleged violations of federal civil immigration law and by restricting city employees from asking about immigration status except where legally required; the city’s explanatory materials and the ordinance text present this as a directive that city services be available to all residents regardless of immigration status [1] [2] [6].
2. Practical provisions singled out in public materials
Public-facing descriptions emphasize three operational rules: city personnel, including police, should not participate in civil immigration enforcement, city employees should not proactively collect immigration-status information unless required by law, and the city will not permit its finite resources to be used for federal immigration operations — language that underpins subsequent executive and council actions [1] [2] [4].
3. How the city has applied the ordinance in day-to-day operations
Implementation has included formal training for the Minneapolis Police Academy on the separation ordinance and the incorporation of the ordinance into departmental discipline matrices, signaling internal enforcement and awareness efforts inside MPD [3]. The city repeatedly asserts publicly that it “does not enforce immigration laws” and points to the ordinance when describing responses to federal operations or litigation regarding federal activity inside the city [7] [2].
4. Recent changes: codifying a staging ban and adding reporting rules
In late 2025 the council and administration moved to strengthen the 2003 ordinance: Mayor Frey issued Executive Order 2025-02 banning use of city-owned lots, ramps and garages as staging or processing areas for civil immigration enforcement, and council revisions sought to codify that ban and require the MPD to publicly report collaborations with federal authorities — while carving out stated legal exemptions — in amended ordinance language presented by council members Chavez, Chughtai, and Chowdhury [4] [5] [8] [9].
5. Legal limits, exceptions and real-world constraints
The ordinance does not, and cannot, prevent federal agencies from enforcing immigration law within city limits; it focuses on limiting city assistance and protecting civil liberties, and it contains or is interpreted alongside exceptions such as compliance with subpoenas or other legal obligations [6]. The city’s own materials and advocates stress that separation policies are not a shield against federal arrest or deportation but a tool to preserve community trust and public safety while complying with higher-order legal requirements [10] [2].
6. Application controversies and the political context
Supporters frame the ordinance and the 2025 strengthening as necessary to maintain public safety by ensuring immigrant communities report crimes and cooperate with police without fear, a rationale promoted by city officials and local advocacy groups [2] [10]. Critics portray the changes as obstructive to federal enforcement and have pushed messaging that the city is a “sanctuary,” a label the city and advocates caution against because the ordinance does not stop federal action; media coverage around the 2025 revisions reflects both the council’s unanimous vote to toughen the rule and partisan framing in outlets highlighting either protection of immigrants or hindrance to ICE operations [9] [11].