Countering Selective ICE Enforcement: Strategies for Blue States
Discussing the Immigration Issue in the US
Related Articles: Jan 6th and LA protests, Protests and Policy, and El Salvador and Bukele
Democratic governors (Tim Walz of MN, J.B. Pritzker of IL, and Kathy Hochul of NY) testify before Congress about their states’ sanctuary policies, defending their approach to immigration enforcement (June 2025).
Blue states have raised alarms that federal immigration authorities (ICE) are selectively targeting urban areas – often Democratic strongholds – for enforcement raids, while sparing rural industries like agriculture and hospitality that rely on undocumented labor. Such an imbalance is viewed as unfair and politically motivated. In response, blue state governments are pursuing a range of countermeasures. Below is a structured overview of actionable strategies in four key categories, with recent examples, laws, court decisions, and political reactions.
1. Legal Measures (Challenging Selective Enforcement)
Lawsuits Against Federal Tactics: States can sue the federal government to challenge selective or punitive enforcement policies. For example, in May 2025 a coalition of 20 Democratic-led states sued the U.S. Department of Transportation over an “unlawful attempt” by the Trump administration to strongarm states into assisting ICE by threatening to cut off transportation funds. The states argue that conditioning federal grants on immigration cooperation usurps Congress’s authority and violates the law. Likewise, several cities and states successfully sued to block the DOJ from withholding law-enforcement grants as punishment for sanctuary policies. In one notable case, the Third Circuit upheld an injunction preventing the administration from cutting Philadelphia’s police grants due to its non-cooperation with ICE, ruling that the Attorney General lacked authority to impose new immigration-related conditions on funding. Courts in Chicago, New York, and San Francisco reached similar decisions, curbing federal attempts to retaliate against sanctuary jurisdictions. These cases show that the judiciary can act as a check when enforcement policy veers into unlawful coercion or retaliation.
Constitutional Claims (Tenth Amendment & Equal Protection): Blue states are invoking constitutional principles to defend their autonomy and residents’ rights. The Tenth Amendment’s anti-commandeering doctrine forbids the federal government from forcing state or local officials to carry out federal immigration duties. This principle, affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court (e.g. Printz v. United States), underpins state laws that refuse cooperation with ICE. When the U.S. sued California to overturn its sanctuary laws, the courts largely upheld California’s right to limit participation in federal immigration enforcement, citing no federal preemption of these state measures. States also raise equal protection or civil rights arguments if enforcement appears discriminatorily targeted. While immigration enforcement is a federal prerogative, blatantly selective crackdowns that punish jurisdictions for their politics or that disproportionately impact certain racial/ethnic communities can face legal scrutiny. For instance, immigrant advocates have filed suits arguing that ICE retaliated against immigrant activists for First Amendment–protected speech. Although challenging “selective enforcement” on constitutional grounds is difficult (requiring proof of discriminatory intent and effect), the very threat of litigation can pressure ICE to rein in egregiously partisan tactics.
Civil Rights and Due Process Litigation: Blue states and allies are pursuing legal action to curb enforcement overreach that violates individuals’ rights or state sovereignty. One strategy is to target ICE practices that interfere with state functions or due process. For example, Massachusetts prosecutors went to court to stop ICE from making civil immigration arrests at state courthouses, arguing these raids deterred immigrants from accessing justice. A federal judge initially issued an injunction barring ICE from arresting parties and witnesses at Massachusetts courthouses, recognizing that such tactics “impair the fair administration of justice” by instilling fear in immigrant communities. (Although a higher court later reversed that injunction on jurisdictional grounds, the lawsuit spurred policy changes – the Biden administration ultimately barred routine courthouse arrests. It’s not clear if this will stop the current administration.) Similarly, state and local governments have backed lawsuits challenging ICE “detainer” practices. Courts in multiple states have found that holding individuals in local jails for extra time solely on ICE requests (without a warrant) violates the Fourth Amendment, exposing local agencies to liability. Citing these rulings, many blue state jurisdictions have ceased honoring ICE detainer requests for minor offenses to avoid wrongful detention claims. In short, by suing to uphold constitutional rights – from due process to anti-discrimination – states can push back on enforcement actions seen as unlawful or driven by improper motives.
Defensive Litigation & Judicial Oversight: When blue states enact pro-immigrant laws, they must often defend them in court against federal challenges – and have notched wins that indirectly restrain ICE. A prime example is California’s 2017 “Sanctuary State” law (SB 54), which limits local law enforcement’s contact with ICE. The Trump DOJ sued, but federal courts upheld most of SB 54, affirming that states can decline to use their resources for federal immigration enforcement. The Ninth Circuit emphasized that states as sovereigns may control their subdivisions and are not required to help enforce federal law. Likewise, Illinois passed the Way Forward Act (2021) banning ICE detention centers in the state; when two counties sued (because they profited from ICE contracts), a federal judge upheld the law as a valid exercise of state power to withdraw its facilities from a federal program. As the court noted, “States are sovereigns. Counties are not,” meaning Illinois could forbid its localities from aiding ICE. These decisions bolster blue states’ legal position: selective federal enforcement cannot be shored up by commandeering state apparatus, and states have leeway to legally distance themselves from ICE activities. Going forward, blue state attorneys general are ready to file injunctions and join suits whenever federal actions cross legal lines – using the courts to ensure immigration enforcement is conducted within the bounds of constitutional fairness.
ICE officials yelling at protestersors in Los Angeles while in the middle of executing a raid on the undocumented (June 2025).
2. Policy and Administrative Actions (Non-Cooperation and Protections)
“Sanctuary” Laws and Limits on Cooperation: A cornerstone of blue states’ strategy is enacting state and local policies that reduce entanglement with ICE. Many have passed so-called sanctuary laws or “Trust” acts that prohibit local officials from assisting in civil immigration enforcement. For instance, states like California, Colorado, Illinois, Oregon, New York, New Jersey, Washington, and Massachusetts have laws or executive orders that forbid police and jails from honoring ICE detainers, sharing certain information, or inquiring about immigration status. Under Illinois law, local agencies cannot participate in ICE arrests or even communicate immigration status to federal authorities in most cases. California’s Values Act (SB 54) similarly bars police from notifying ICE of release dates or transferring non-violent offenders, and requires a judicial warrant for any extended detention. These policies force ICE to operate without state help in those jurisdictions – a powerful deterrent against politically targeted raids. Notably, courts have upheld such measures, recognizing that the federal government “cannot require states and localities to carry out its immigration policy”. Under the current set of laws, states can refuse to help ICE and the federal government cannot impose (large scale) funding cuts to impel them to comply. By codifying non-cooperation, blue states make clear that their personnel and facilities will not be used to facilitate selective crackdowns. Sanctuary cities are lawful and cannot be coerced into submission by the federal government
Restricting Data Sharing and Access: States are also tightening control over information pipelines that ICE has used for enforcement. Several blue states now refuse to share certain state databases (like DMV records) with immigration authorities. New York’s 2019 “Green Light Law” allowed undocumented residents to obtain driver’s licenses and explicitly barred the DMV from giving ICE or CBP access to license data without a court order. This was a direct attempt to prevent ICE from data-mining state records to locate individuals. The policy met retaliation – the Trump DHS temporarily banned New Yorkers from Trusted Traveler programs as leverage – but New York sued and DHS backed down, admitting in court that New York had been singled out while other states with similar laws were not punished. Similarly, New Jersey and other states have privacy laws to shield state ID, healthcare, or labor records from immigration agents unless required by law. By cutting off ICE’s data access, states curb the reach of federal enforcement in their communities. This is especially relevant to counter selective targeting: if ICE is focusing on big-city populations, measures like these make it harder to pinpoint and round up residents en masse.
“Sanctuary” Facilities and Safe Zones: Another tactic is designating certain locations as off-limits or requiring extra legal hurdles for ICE. Blue states have expanded safe zone policies (building on ICE’s own “sensitive locations” guidance) to protect places like schools, hospitals, and courthouses. For example, Chicago Public Schools announced it will not permit ICE agents on school grounds without a valid judicial warrant. Some states have similar policies for hospitals and health clinics to ensure immigrants can seek care without fear of arrest. New York enacted a “protect our courts” law in 2020 affirming that civil arrests may not be executed at state courthouses without a judge’s approval, aiming to stop ICE from trolling courtrooms for targets. While federal agents ultimately retain authority, these policies set clear expectations and often deter lower-level ICE activity, especially when backed by local law enforcement refusing cooperation. Additionally, states like California prohibit private employers from granting ICE access to non-public areas or employee records without a warrant (as in CA’s Immigrant Worker Protection Act, AB 450). This limits surprise workplace raids in industries that politically sympathetic forces might otherwise exempt (like hospitality or farming). Such administrative rules create a web of legal safeguards around immigrant communities in blue states – from the workplace to schools – blunting the impact of any targeted federal campaign.
State Enforcement of Sanctuary Policies: Importantly, blue states are not just passing policies—they are enforcing them internally, even against local entities that break rank. A recent high-profile case in Washington state illustrates this: Washington’s Keep Washington Working Act forbids local jails from holding people for ICE or assisting in immigration inquiries. When one county sheriff continued to collaborate with ICE, the state Attorney General sued the county to halt the cooperation. This marked a rare move of a state suing its own subdivision to ensure compliance with pro-immigrant state law. The conflict escalated to the point where the Trump DOJ intervened to support the defiant sheriff, even attempting to indemnify him against state penalties. Nonetheless, the message from blue state leaders is clear: state policies that limit ICE will be taken seriously and enforced. States are issuing guidance, as Illinois did in 2025 reminding all police departments that participating in civil immigration enforcement is against state law. By tightening oversight and imposing consequences (administrative or legal) on agencies that cooperate improperly, states bolster the credibility of their sanctuary stance. In effect, this creates a unified front – cities, counties, and state agencies all adhering to a policy of minimal ICE interaction – which in turn frustrates any attempt to conduct large-scale raids in those jurisdictions.
Innovative Protections and Workarounds: Blue states continue to explore novel policies to shield their residents. Some have extended local identification programs (e.g. municipal ID cards) and curtailed what information police can collect or disclose about immigration status, so that ICE can’t easily use minor infractions or databases to target people. Others provide state-level benefits regardless of status (like healthcare or pandemic aid) to reduce the fear that accessing services will expose someone to ICE. While not directly blocking enforcement, these policies foster trust and encourage immigrant communities to engage with local authorities (schools, police, health providers) without ICE entanglement. The overall effect is a form of passive resistance: by denying voluntary assistance and limiting points of access, blue states make selective enforcement more logistically difficult and legally contentious. ICE may still operate in those states, but without help from local police, without easy database access, and under watch for civil rights violations, any politically motivated campaign is harder to carry out and easier to challenge.
3. Political and Public Messaging (Resistance and Narrative Shaping)
Calling Out Selective Enforcement Publicly: Blue state leaders are leveraging the bully pulpit to expose and criticize the uneven focus of immigration crackdowns. Governors, mayors, and legislators regularly highlight the hypocrisy in targeting urban immigrant communities while ignoring rural violators. For example, when news broke in 2025 that the administration ordered ICE to pause raids on farms, hotels, and meatpacking plants – industries favored by Republican constituencies – Democrats blasted the move as politically biased. Public figures have pointed out that if undocumented workers are truly a security threat, enforcement wouldn’t carve out exceptions for sectors like agribusiness. By making such arguments in press conferences and on social media, blue state officials aim to undermine the credibility of ICE actions and frame them as partisan stunts rather than legitimate law enforcement. This messaging was evident in congressional hearings in June 2025, where Democratic governors defended their sanctuary policies and noted that “enforcing immigration law is not the role of local and state governments”. Minnesota’s Governor Walz, for instance, testified that nothing his state is doing “stands in the way” of federal authorities, but that his priority is serving his residents, not acting as ICE agents. By reframing the debate – from one about “law and order” to one about fairness, federal overreach, and community trust – blue states rally public opinion against heavy-handed tactics.
Public Awareness Campaigns and Know-Your-Rights Initiatives: In tandem with official statements, blue state and city leaders are mounting public campaigns to educate and empower immigrant communities. A vivid example is Chicago’s “Know Your Rights” initiative launched in January 2025 amid rumors of impending ICE raidsabc7chicago.comabc7chicago.com. Mayor Brandon Johnson, with support from Illinois Governor Pritzker, rolled out ads across public transit systems explaining what to do if confronted by ICE agents – reminding residents that they have the right to remain silent, to refuse entry without a warrant, and to legal counsel. Chicago even used digital transit displays to broadcast these messages in multiple languages, a creative use of city infrastructure to counter ICE’s reach. Similar “know-your-rights” trainings and hotlines have been promoted in New York, Los Angeles, and Houston (often through partnerships with nonprofits and immigrant advocates). These efforts serve a dual purpose: they reduce the effectiveness of surprise enforcement (as informed individuals are less likely to be caught off guard) and they send a message of solidarity – that local leaders stand with immigrant residents. By publicly pledging “We will defend our city… We will not be intimidated”, as Chicago Mayor Johnson did, officials galvanize community resistance. This grassroots resilience makes it politically costlier for ICE to conduct raids, especially if accompanied by bad optics like families and local leaders protesting on camera.
Immigrant advocates and community members rally in Chicago calling to “Free Them All!” (end immigrant detention) in July 2021. Public protests and grassroots activism in blue states have pushed officials to take bolder stances against ICE enforcement.
Mobilizing Public Opinion and Advocacy: Blue states often work hand-in-hand with civil society to shine a spotlight on what they deem unjust enforcement. This includes facilitating public hearings, town halls, and media coverage about the impacts of raids. For instance, after a series of high-profile deportation operations in Los Angeles in 2025, there were widespread demonstrations that spread to New York, Chicago, and other cities. State and local politicians joined these rallies or voiced support, characterizing ICE’s tactics as “thuggery” and an assault on community values. By elevating the voices of immigrant families, employers, faith leaders, and police chiefs who oppose draconian raids, blue state officials create a powerful narrative of local unity against outside aggression. Many have formed rapid response networks in partnership with NGOs – these networks show up during ICE operations to observe, document, and protest, increasing transparency and often causing ICE to back off from highly visible confrontations. Politically, governors and mayors have also appealed to Congress and the public at large through op-eds and coalitions. They argue that selective enforcement is part of a broader agenda to scapegoat immigrants and punish political opponents, urging comprehensive immigration reform instead of raids. This public pressure has had tangible effects: during the Trump era, outcry over tactics like separating families, targeting Dreamers, or conducting massive workplace raids in blue locales often led to policy reversals or restraint. In short, sustained messaging campaigns – from official resolutions to street protests – build public opposition to partisan-fueled enforcement, which in turn can deter the federal agency from overreach or at least win the moral high ground for state leaders.
Political Pushback and Coalition-Building: Blue state officials are also using formal political channels to resist targeted ICE action. This includes testifying in Congress (as seen when multiple Democratic governors appeared at a heated House hearing to defend sanctuary policies), lobbying the administration (when sympathetic) for relief, and forming state compacts on immigration. States like New York, California, and Illinois frequently coordinate their responses – sharing legal strategies and aligning on messaging – which presents a united front. Additionally, some blue state leaders have threatened counter-measures against federal interference: California’s governor floated the idea of reviewing state contracts with ICE or even restricting state lands from being used by federal agents if abuses continued. While not always enacted, such threats are part of the political theater that signals resolve. Importantly, blue states underscore the contributions of immigrants to their economies and communities in their messaging. By highlighting stories of teachers, healthcare workers, or business owners who are immigrants, they humanize the targets of ICE enforcement and argue that raids are harming “law-abiding, tax-paying” neighbors (as Gov. Pritzker emphasized). This narrative seeks to isolate ICE and its political backers as extremists out of touch with local values. Finally, blue state officials have embraced the “welcoming city/state” branding – passing resolutions that declare immigrants welcome and discrimination unwelcome. This political stance not only boosts morale among residents but also creates a narrative shield: any harsh crackdown can be portrayed as an attack on the community’s own identity and laws, not just on outsiders. Through these combined political and public relations efforts, blue states work to delegitimize selective enforcement in the eyes of the public and history, building momentum for policy change.
4. Economic and Budgetary Measures (Fiscal Leverage and Support)
Denying State Resources and Facilities to ICE: One straightforward way blue states counter ICE is by withholding the use of state-funded resources for immigration enforcement. Many sanctuary laws include budgetary provisions forbidding the expenditure of state or local funds on assisting federal deportations. This means state police cannot be paid (by state coffers) for time spent on ICE task forces, and local jurisdictions risk state funding if they prioritize immigration enforcement over local needs. In practice, some states have tied compliance with sanctuary policies to eligibility for certain state grants, incentivizing localities to follow the non-cooperation line. Moreover, states have moved to bar ICE’s access to detention space which indirectly leverages financial pressure. For example, the Illinois Way Forward Act not only banned new ICE detention contracts but forced the closure of existing ICE detention in county jails. Two counties sued to keep their profitable contracts, but the courts upheld Illinois’ right to end them. Those counties had to relinquish millions in annual revenue from ICE, and ICE in turn had to transfer detainees out of state at its own expense. Similarly, California and New Jersey enacted laws or policies to phase out private immigration detention centers and stop local jail contracts, effectively evicting ICE detainees from facilities in those states. This use of economic leverage serves a dual purpose: it raises the cost and logistical difficulty for ICE to conduct operations (since holding arrestees becomes harder), and it aligns state budgets with moral priorities (refusing to financially support what state leaders view as unjust enforcement). In essence, blue states are saying: Not on our dime, and not in our backyard.
Blocking Funding Threats and Federal Penalties: On the flip side, blue states have fought off federal attempts to strip funding in retaliation for sanctuary policies – turning fiscal weapons back on the administration. As noted, the Trump administration repeatedly threatened to withhold federal grants or other funds from jurisdictions that don’t cooperate with ICE. Blue states responded not only with lawsuits (as in the DOT case) but also by crafting their budgets to be less vulnerable to such pressure. Some states created “backup plans” to replace threatened federal funds with state money to ensure local services (like policing or social programs) wouldn’t suffer – effectively nullifying the coercion by making themselves financially independent of the withheld grants. Others joined compacts to publicly refuse federal dollars that came with immigration strings attached, betting that the political fallout would force a restoration of funds (which indeed happened when courts ruled the threats unlawful). Additionally, states have allocated legal funds to defend any state or local entity sued or fined by the feds. For example, when the DOJ signaled it might prosecute officials for obstructing ICE, some state legislatures discussed indemnifying public employees who comply with state sanctuary laws rather than federal demands. (This mirrors, in reverse, the Trump order offering to indemnify officers who violate state law to help ICE – blue states signaled they’d protect their own against federal retribution.) By budgeting for legal defense and contingency funding, states make it clear that financial blackmail won’t easily crack sanctuary policies.
Support for Undocumented Workers and Industries: To counteract the fear and disruption caused by ICE enforcement – especially in targeted urban economies – blue states have introduced economic measures to support the undocumented workforce that the federal crackdown puts at risk. One approach has been the creation of state funds for immigrant legal defense and worker assistance. For instance, California, New York, Illinois and others have dedicated millions of dollars to non-profit legal service providers who represent residents facing deportation. By ensuring immigrants have lawyers, states improve their chances of winning relief in court and reducing deportations, effectively nullifying some enforcement efforts. States have also stepped up labor protections: knowing that certain industries (like agriculture, hospitality, food processing) exploit undocumented labor then quietly lobby to shield those workers from raids, blue states choose to enforce labor and employment laws vigorously in those sectors. This includes penalizing employers for wage theft or unsafe conditions regardless of workers’ status, and outlawing retaliation if workers complain. California law, for example, makes it illegal for an employer to threaten to call ICE on a worker as retaliation for asserting labor rights. These measures aim to empower undocumented workers to speak up, which in turn deters the most egregious employers and undercuts the narrative that only “sanctuary cities” harbor unauthorized labor. Some blue state governors have even floated ideas like state-sponsored work permits or assistance programs for industries to transition to legal labor channels, thereby reducing the pool of exploitable undocumented labor over time. While immigration status is federally determined, states can provide in-state tuition, professional licenses, or pandemic relief funds to undocumented individuals, strengthening their economic stability. All this support makes immigrant communities and local economies more resilient to ICE actions. If a raid does happen in a city, the state might offer emergency aid to affected families or businesses; conversely, by not cracking down on rural sectors themselves, blue states avoid a double standard and can credibly accuse the federal government of favoritism. The broader strategy is to insulate vulnerable populations and key industries from the shock of enforcement, so that politically motivated raids do not achieve their disruptive objectives.
Economic Incentives and Disincentives: Finally, blue states use their economic clout in subtle ways to push back against ICE overreach. State and city governments control large budgets and contracts; some have sought to boycott or divest from companies that facilitate aggressive ICE tactics. This might include refusing to do business with private prison companies that run ICE detention centers, or pressuring banks to stop financing those facilities. (In one notable move, California enacted a law to stop private prisons including ICE detention, and while the policy met legal challenges, it reflected a strong fiscal stance against profiting from detention.) Additionally, states can extend sanctuary principles to budgeting by, say, prohibiting state law enforcement overtime solely for immigration enforcement or disallowing the use of state equipment (vehicles, databases) for ICE operations. Some sanctuary cities have even billed ICE for the cost of local resources expended during federal raids as a form of protest. On the incentive side, states like New York and Illinois have celebrated businesses that join “fair immigration” pledges – for example, not allowing ICE onto premises without a warrant, or publicly supporting DREAMers – and in some cases have given preferential treatment in state contracting to firms with pro-immigrant policies. Such economic signals reinforce a culture of resistance. They also rally influential business voices (like tech companies, agricultural producers in blue states, etc.) to pressure the federal government for more rational and fair immigration policies. In summary, through a mix of budgetary restrictions, supportive funding, and economic signaling, blue states use their financial power to mitigate the impact of ICE enforcement and discourage its misuse. When federal agents know they will get no help from local budgets – and when the people they target have state-backed resources – the allure of sweeping raids in those jurisdictions diminishes.
Sources for Further Reading:
Ted Hesson & Marisa Taylor, “Trump orders ICE to pause raids on farms, hotels, restaurants”, Reuters (June 16, 2025) – Details on selective enforcement sparing certain industries reuters.com.
Jonathan Stempel, “Philadelphia beats U.S. appeal in sanctuary city case”, Reuters (Feb. 15, 2019) – Court ruling blocking federal funding cuts over sanctuary policies reuters.com.
AGC News, “States Sue DOT Over Immigration Enforcement Threats” (May 15, 2025) – 20 states’ lawsuit against federal funding coercion tied to ICE news.agc.org.
MultiState Insider, “States and Feds Continue to Clash Over Immigration Enforcement” (May 15, 2025) – Overview of sanctuary state laws, legal precedent, and state vs. federal conflicts (e.g. WA state suing a county sheriff) multistate.us.
CBS News, “Blue state governors testify on ‘sanctuary’ policies at heated hearing” (June 12, 2025) – Political reactions, governors’ statements, and federal response to sanctuary states cbsnews.com.
ABC7 Chicago, “Chicago launches ‘Know Your Rights’ campaign amid immigration raids” (Jan. 24, 2025) – Example of local public messaging and state officials’ promises to protect immigrants abc7chicago.com.
Injustice Watch, “Judge upholds Illinois Way Forward Act, ends ICE detention in state” (Dec. 7, 2021) – Illinois law banning ICE detention contracts and court affirmation of state authority injusticewatch.org
Notes: This is my own opinion and not the opinion of my employer, State Street, or any other organization. This is not a solicitation to buy or sell any stock. My team and I use a Large Language Model (LLM) aided workflow. This allows us to test 5-10 ideas and curate the best 2-4 a week for you to read. Rest easy that we fact check, edit, and reorganize the writing so that the output is more engaging, more reliable, and more informative than vanilla LLM output. We are always looking for feedback to improve this process.
Additionally, if you would like updates more frequently, follow us on x: https://x.com/cameronfen1. In addition, feel free to send me corrections, new ideas for articles, or anything else you think I would like: cameronfen at gmail dot com.
I wanted to stay somewhat positive with my newsletter this week. But, this was true then and it’s only getting worse. Gestapo is not some over-the-top, click-bait term. It’s the absolute truth.
https://mdavis19881.substack.com/p/breaking-ice-is-the-american-gestapo