Democrats in Blue States Advancing Measures to “Reign In” ICE
In the wake of rising controversy around immigration enforcement, particularly following fatal shootings and aggressive federal operations, Democrats — especially in blue states — are pushing a wave of legislative action aimed at reining in U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). From redefining how and where federal immigration agents can operate to enabling civil lawsuits against federal officers and taxing immigration detention facilities, these measures reflect deep frustration with current enforcement tactics and a broader ideological struggle over the role of federal immigration authority within local communities.
I. Background — Why Now?
A. Catalysts: Controversies Over Enforcement Actions
In recent weeks and months, a series of high‑profile incidents have intensified scrutiny of ICE’s operations — particularly its enforcement tactics and use of force.
A fatal shooting in Minneapolis, where an ICE agent killed a protester during an enforcement operation, sent shockwaves across the political spectrum and became a flashpoint in debates over federal immigration policy. Coverage and reactions to the incident have underscored its immediate impact on legislative efforts.
Such incidents have not occurred in isolation. Reports of courthouse arrests, aggressive raids, and operations in sensitive community spaces have drawn criticism from civil liberties advocates and Democratic lawmakers alike, reinforcing long‑standing concerns about ICE’s impact on immigrant communities.
B. The Broader Political Context
ICE’s activities are part of a broader, highly politicized national immigration enforcement apparatus, overseen by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and influenced by the policies of the Trump administration, which has pursued expanded deportations and aggressive enforcement tactics. Congressional debate over funding DHS — including ICE — has already become a political flashpoint, contributing to stalled appropriations bills and the looming threat of a federal government shutdown.
At the same time, Democrats — particularly more progressive lawmakers — have intensified pressure for substantive changes to how immigration enforcement operates, with proposals in the U.S. Senate and House demanding everything from body cameras on immigration agents to judicial warrant requirements and outright structural changes.
II. Blue State Legislative Action on ICE
A. California — A Wave of Bills Targeting ICE Practices
California has emerged as a hub of activism and legislative experimentation on this front, with multiple proposals aimed at restricting ICE’s influence and offering new forms of accountability.
1. The “No Kings Act” — Suits Against Federal Officers
One of the most prominent bills in the California Legislature is Senate Bill 747, nicknamed the “No Kings Act.” Authored by state Senators Scott Wiener and Aisha Wahab, this legislation would make it easier for Californians to sue federal officers, including ICE agents, for civil rights violations. The bill passed the California Senate along party lines and now awaits consideration in the State Assembly. Supporters argue the measure addresses a legal accountability gap, since federal officers currently enjoy broad immunity from many state civil suits.
In floor debates, Democratic senators cited concerns about constitutional rights protections and the need for accountability when federal agents overstep their authority.
2. Prohibiting Law Enforcement “Moonlighting” as Federal Agents
Another California measure would prohibit local and state law enforcement officers from taking part‑time jobs as federal immigration agents. Introduced by Assemblymember Isaac Bryan, this bill aims to close a loophole that allows officers to enforce immigration laws outside their regular duties. Lawmakers say the measure would bring transparency and reinforce local autonomy over policing priorities.
3. Keeping ICE Out of Courthouses and Sensitive Locations
California lawmakers have also introduced legislation to prevent federal immigration agents from making unannounced or indiscriminate arrests in courthouses and other sensitive public spaces. These measures aim to ensure that individuals can access the justice system without fear of immigration enforcement interrupting proceedings.
There are additional proposals to expand remote court appearances and discourage immigration enforcement actions in schools, hospitals, and places of worship — areas seen by advocates as critical for community safety.
4. Taxing Immigration Detention Centers
Another California bill, introduced by Assemblymember Matt Haney, would impose a 50% tax on profits earned by immigration detention centers operating within the state. Proponents frame this as a way to discourage profit‑driven detention practices and redirect funds toward community services. Critics argue the measure could spark legal challenges based on federal preemption but note it highlights growing unease with private detention facilities.
B. Other Blue States — New York, Oregon, New Jersey, and Beyond
California’s efforts are part of a broader pattern of Democratic legislative action in other states.
1. New York — Civil Suits and Warrant Restrictions
In New York, Democratic lawmakers, including Gov. Kathy Hochul, are advancing bills to allow individuals to sue federal officers for civil rights violations and to require federal agents to obtain judicial warrants before conducting enforcement actions in schools, hospitals, and houses of worship. Advocates say these protections are necessary to uphold constitutional rights in sensitive spaces.
2. Oregon — Fourth Amendment Protections
Oregon Democrats are moving a bill to let residents sue federal agents for violating their Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. This legislation mirrors similar efforts in California and reflects a trend toward state‑level legal mechanisms to check federal enforcement.
3. New Jersey — Cooperation and Sanctuary Protections
The New Jersey Legislature — led by Democrats — passed three immigration‑related bills, including one that prohibits state law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. These measures, long advocated by immigrant rights groups, are now awaiting action by the governor.
C. Less Likely Venues — Democrats in Red States Still Speaking Out
Even in states without Democratic legislative majorities, Democratic lawmakers have introduced bills aimed at limiting aspects of federal immigration enforcement. Examples include proposals in Georgia to restrict enforcement powers, though these are unlikely to advance due to Republican control of those legislatures.
This pattern shows that the political energy behind these proposals is national in scope, even where legislative success is unlikely.
III. Federal Democratic Action and Demands
While state activism continues, Democrats at the federal level — in both the U.S. House and Senate — are also pursuing measures to restrain ICE and reshape immigration enforcement policy.
A. House Democrats and Structural Reforms
At least one Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Shri Thanedar of Michigan, recently introduced the “Abolish ICE Act,” which would dismantle the agency entirely and end its enforcement authority. Thanedar publicly characterized ICE as “beyond reform,” arguing that limited reforms are insufficient to address systemic issues within the agency.
Although such a bill is unlikely to gain broad support or pass in a Republican‑controlled House, its introduction signals the depth of frustration among some progressives and keeps the concept of structural reform part of the national conversation.
B. Senate Democrats — Funding Negotiations and Reform Demands
In the Senate, Democratic leaders have taken a different tack, leveraging spending negotiations to push for changes to how immigration enforcement is funded and conducted.
Recent budget talks over DHS appropriations, including funding for ICE, have stalled as Democrats refuse to advance bills that do not include meaningful limits on ICE operations. Some Democratic senators have demanded stricter conditions on enforcement funding, including requirements that agents wear identification, cease indiscriminate sweeps without warrants, and comply fully with constitutional protections.
This stance threatens to delay or derail spending bills unless reforms are agreed upon, raising the specter of a federal government shutdown in early 2026.
C. Negotiating Practical Reforms — Cameras, Warrants, and Masks
Many Senate Democrats have outlined a set of practical reforms as part of negotiations, including:
Requiring all immigration agents to wear body cameras and visible identification.
Ending the use of masks or unmarked gear that obscures agents’ identities.
Requiring judicial warrants, rather than administrative warrants, for certain enforcement actions — particularly in private homes.
Ending racial profiling and indiscriminate car stops or arrests without just cause.
These proposals aim to balance enforcement capacity with oversight, civil liberties, and accountability. However, they remain contested in negotiations with Republican lawmakers and the administration.
IV. Support and Opposition
A. Support — Immigrant Rights and Civil Liberties Advocates
Immigrant rights groups, civil liberties organizations, and many community leaders strongly support these measures. They argue that the lack of accountability for federal immigration agents has created a climate of fear and hindered immigrant communities from accessing services, attending court, or participating fully in civic life.
Supporters also point to the constitutional implications of warrantless enforcement actions and the absence of clear avenues for civil redress when federal agents violate individuals’ rights.
B. Opposition — Federal Authority and Public Safety Concerns
Opposition comes from several fronts. Republican lawmakers and conservative commentators argue that these measures undermine national immigration laws and pose risks to public safety by hampering federal enforcement operations.
Some critics also contend that policies like sanctuary protections and restrictions on cooperation between state and federal law enforcement may incentivize illegal immigration or create enforcement gaps.
At the federal level, Republicans have worked to preserve ICE funding and operational latitude, resisting some Democratic demands regarding warrants and other procedural reforms.
V. Legal and Constitutional Issues
Many of the state measures being proposed raise significant legal questions about federal preemption and constitutional authority.
Under the Supremacy Clause, federal immigration law generally supersedes conflicting state law. Critics of state efforts to regulate how ICE operates argue that such measures may be struck down in federal court as unconstitutional intrusions into federal authority. However, proponents say that states retain significant power to regulate state and local cooperation with federal enforcement and can create legal remedies where federal enforcement affects their residents.
This tension sets the stage for likely legal battles — particularly if blue state laws become more assertive in defining limits on federal enforcement activities.
Continue reading…
