Sanctuary Policies Create a Legal Gray Zone for Federal Immigration Enforcement

Last updated 8 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

Over 2,000 armed federal agents deployed to Minnesota. A U.S. citizen shot dead by ICE while sitting in her car. A former CNN anchor now facing federal felony charges over a church protest. When federal agents arrested Don Lemon in Los Angeles on January 30, 2026, the case raised the question of how far the government can go in prosecuting opposition to its enforcement operations, and whether journalists recording those operations can be charged under federal conspiracy laws designed for the Ku Klux Klan.

The arrest stems from a January 18 protest at Cities Church in St. Paul, where activists disrupted Sunday services to object to one of the church’s pastors, David Easterwood, who also serves as the acting field director of the local ICE office. Lemon, who was covering the demonstration as an independent journalist, was charged with conspiracy to violate civil rights under a federal law from 1870, a Reconstruction-era statute enacted to prosecute white supremacist violence against freed Black Americans. He was also charged with misdemeanors under the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, a law passed in 1994 primarily to protect abortion clinics from violent attacks.

The demonstrators were chanting “Justice for Renee Good.” Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis eleven days earlier while sitting in her vehicle. She had been a legal observer recording ICE enforcement activities.

Can the federal government charge journalists with conspiracy for covering a demonstration against enforcement? Can it deploy thousands of armed officers to a state as leverage to force compliance with federal policies? Can sanctuary cities maintain their refusal to cooperate with ICE without facing criminal prosecution or overwhelming federal force?

The Charges: Reconstruction-Era Law Meets Protest

The conspiracy statute under which Lemon and three others are charged—a federal law from 1870—makes it a federal crime for two or more people to conspire to harm someone’s constitutional rights. The Justice Department’s theory is that the defendants conspired to violate churchgoers’ First Amendment right to worship freely, undisturbed by demonstration.

This is the same statute used to prosecute the murders of civil rights workers in the “Mississippi Burning” case. It was designed for violence and intimidation: lynchings, beatings, armed threats. Whether it reaches a church disruption, and especially journalists recording that disruption, is the question this case raises.

The FACE Act charge adds another layer of legal irony. The statute was enacted to protect abortion clinics after violent attacks on abortion providers, though it also covers places of religious worship. Forty-two House Republicans co-sponsored legislation to repeal it as recently as 2025, arguing it criminalizes legitimate demonstrations. Now the Trump administration is using it to prosecute demonstrators at a church.

Independent journalist Georgia Fort, who was also arrested, livestreamed her coverage of the demonstration on YouTube and Facebook Live, explicitly identifying herself as a journalist. Legal experts have sharply criticized the application of conspiracy charges to journalists recording political events. David Harris, a University of Pittsburgh law professor, observed that “charging journalists for being there covering the disruption does not mean they were part of the disruption.”

Two federal judges initially rejected the government’s attempts to arrest Lemon and the other defendants. Magistrate Judge Douglas Micko found insufficient probable cause to issue arrest warrants for five of eight defendants, including Lemon. When the Justice Department appealed to Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz, he rejected the government’s request, noting that the appeal was “unprecedented” and that none of the individuals had committed acts of violence. Two of them—the journalist and her producer—weren’t even demonstrators.

After these judicial rejections, the Justice Department sought an indictment from a grand jury. The indictment proceeded despite explicit judicial skepticism.

What Sanctuary Policies Are (And Aren’t)

Sanctuary policies don’t prevent federal enforcement. They don’t shield immigrants from deportation. They don’t prohibit ICE from operating in a jurisdiction.

What they do is limit state and local cooperation with federal authorities. Sanctuary policies take various forms: some prohibit state and local police from assisting in operations; others restrict information sharing with ICE about immigrants’ release dates or status; still others decline to honor ICE detainer requests—requests asking local police to keep someone in jail longer to allow federal officers time to assume custody.

Minneapolis passed an ordinance in December 2025 stating that police would not arrest or detain people to enforce federal laws. St. Paul has similar policies. Minnesota’s Department of Corrections, by contrast, honors all federal ICE detainers.

The legal justification for these policies rests on the constitutional rule that the federal government can’t force states to enforce federal laws. This is established Supreme Court precedent.

The Constitutional Foundation: You Can’t Make States Do Your Job

In Printz v. United States, a 1997 Supreme Court case, the Court struck down a federal law requiring state law officers to conduct background checks for handgun purchases. The Court held that Congress cannot compel state officials to enforce federal regulatory schemes. Chief Justice Rehnquist emphasized that the federal government’s power would be “augmented immeasurably and impermissibly” if it could “impress into its service…the police officers of the States.”

In New York v. United States (1992), the Court struck down federal legislation requiring states to take responsibility for nuclear waste. Justice O’Connor wrote that Congress may provide incentives for state action but cannot issue direct orders to state legislatures or executives.

Most recently, in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2018), the Supreme Court expanded protection, holding that Congress cannot even prohibit states from doing something—Congress must either authorize state action or refrain from regulating the field entirely.

R. Linus Chan at the University of Minnesota and Jenny Breen at Syracuse University have both emphasized that the Constitution’s 10th Amendment means the federal government can’t force states to enforce federal laws.

The federal government may conduct its own operations without any state or local assistance. Federal officers can make their own arrests and execute federal law. What they cannot do—according to the doctrine—is order state and local officials to participate. That distinction proves more complicated in practice than in theory.

ICE Detainers: Voluntary Requests and Legal Reality

An ICE detainer is a request asking local police to keep a person in custody beyond the point when they would normally be released, giving federal authorities additional time to assume custody.

For years, federal practice treated detainers as if they were mandatory legal requirements. But a series of federal court decisions and regulatory clarifications have established that detainers are voluntary requests, not binding legal requirements.

The constitutional foundation rests on the Fourth Amendment, which says you can’t hold someone in jail without a good reason. When a person’s criminal charge has been resolved, when they’ve posted bail, or when they’ve completed their sentence, holding them further in custody requires either a judicial warrant establishing probable cause or clear statutory authorization. An ICE detainer, standing alone, provides neither.

Federal immigration regulations describe detainers as requests that “serve to advise” other law agencies that DHS is seeking custody. Both the Third Circuit and federal district courts have interpreted this language to mean detainers are voluntary, and have noted that treating them as mandatory would likely violate the Tenth Amendment.

In response to litigation, the Department of Homeland Security modified standard detainer forms to explicitly include the words “REQUEST” and “VOLUNTARY” in prominent locations.

Minnesota’s Attorney General took this principle further in February 2025, issuing a formal legal opinion concluding that Minnesota law agencies risk significant civil liability if they honor detainers by holding people beyond their normal release date. The opinion emphasized that federal regulations specify detainers are requests, that the Tenth Amendment prohibits forcing state officials to do federal work, and that continuing to hold someone based on a civil detainer when no criminal matter justifies detention constitutes an “arrest” requiring probable cause or a warrant.

Yet federal authorities continue to issue detainers and express frustration when agencies decline to honor them. The Trump administration has repeatedly criticized sanctuary jurisdictions for declining to honor detainers, framing non-cooperation as obstruction of federal law. From a strict constitutional standpoint, declining to honor a voluntary detainer request is not obstruction. There is a difference between not helping and actively blocking federal operations.

Section 1373: What the Law Actually Says

A 1996 federal law (Section 1373) claims to require state and local governments to allow communication between their officials and federal authorities. The statute provides that “a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”

The Trump administration cited this statute as a basis for demanding cooperation, threatening to withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions that purportedly violated § 1373.

Multiple federal courts have interpreted § 1373 far more narrowly than the Trump administration asserted. The Ninth Circuit, in United States v. California, held that § 1373 does not mandate actively helping with operations; it merely permits cooperation. The court reasoned that the law says officials can talk to federal officers, but doesn’t say they have to help with operations.

Many sanctuary policies don’t conflict with § 1373 because the policies don’t prohibit officials from communicating with ICE; they simply decline to initiate or participate in operations. An official who receives a question about someone’s status and provides an honest answer complies with § 1373. A police officer who doesn’t investigate status, or who doesn’t detain someone based on an ICE request, doesn’t violate § 1373.

In City of Chicago v. Sessions (2018), the Seventh Circuit struck down the Trump administration’s efforts to withhold federal law grants from sanctuary cities as a condition of § 1373 compliance. Judge Harry D. Leinenweber wrote that while federal law can require compliance with applicable federal statutes, the Attorney General had not demonstrated statutory authority to impose § 1373 compliance as an additional condition on federal grant funding. The court also said that even where Congress authorizes funding conditions, the government can’t use money as a threat to force states to cooperate.

Operation Metro Surge: Federal Action as Coercion

The events surrounding Don Lemon’s arrest must be understood against the backdrop of a dramatic escalation in federal operations beginning in December 2025. The Trump administration initiated “Operation Metro Surge,” deploying thousands of armed federal officers—including from ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection—to the Twin Cities.

According to Minnesota’s complaint filed in federal court on January 12, 2026, the federal government has acknowledged deploying over 2,000 federal officers to Minnesota—a number exceeding the combined sworn police force of Minneapolis and St. Paul.

Minnesota’s percentage of undocumented immigrants is substantially lower than the national average, raising questions about the operation’s stated purpose of targeting violations and fraud. Federal officials have claimed the operation targets fraud, with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem asserting that “the amount of fraud in Minnesota is unprecedented.”

Multiple Trump administration officials have explicitly connected the surge to the state’s sanctuary policies. Attorney General Pam Bondi’s January 24 letter to Governor Tim Walz suggested that the state’s “sanctuary defiance” bore responsibility for the enhanced operations. A White House statement on January 16 explicitly stated that Minnesota’s “sanctuary defiance” is “responsible” for the surge. Trump administration “border czar” Tom Homan has indicated that the federal government will not withdraw officers from Minnesota unless the state curbs its sanctuary policies and extends cooperation to federal enforcers.

This explicit connection between maintaining aggressive federal operations and the state’s refusal to cooperate raises a new constitutional question: Can the federal government use the threat of massive, militarized operations as a means of coercing state and local governments to abandon their chosen policies?

Minnesota, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and civil rights organizations have argued that this violates the Tenth Amendment. Minnesota’s lawsuit alleges that Operation Metro Surge violates the Tenth Amendment, the First Amendment (through retaliation against political speech), the law that governs how federal agencies make decisions, and constitutional guarantees of equal sovereignty between states and the federal government.

A federal judge has declined to grant Minnesota’s request for emergency relief halting the surge, but this decision doesn’t settle whether the surge itself is legal. Denying emergency relief—which requires a higher legal standard—doesn’t constitute a ruling that the surge itself is lawful. The broader constitutional challenge continues.

When Journalists Become Defendants

The charges against Don Lemon and Georgia Fort introduce a new layer of legal uncertainty: can the federal government criminally charge journalists for covering demonstrations against federal enforcement?

Lemon, a 30-year veteran journalist, has stated repeatedly that he was covering the demonstration as an independent journalist, livestreaming portions to his Instagram audience. His attorney, Abbe Lowell, emphasized that “Don has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done.”

Fort similarly livestreamed her coverage on YouTube and Facebook Live, explicitly identifying herself as a journalist covering the event. The indictment against both alleges that they were “part of” the operation and that they conspired with others to disrupt the church service.

Jonathan Manes, a civil rights lawyer, stated directly: “The point is that a journalist covering activities going on is not part of those activities. Journalists shouldn’t be charged federally with conspiracy when they’re covering it.”

The Committee to Protect Journalists has condemned the arrests as “a serious violation of First Amendment press freedom and journalists’ ability to do their work,” noting that it is “highly unusual for a journalist to be charged with a felony in relation to their reporting.” According to the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker, federal charges—especially felonies—against journalists are “extremely rare.”

In the limited cases where journalists have been charged at the state level for recording demonstrations on private property, charges have almost always been dropped and defendants acquitted if cases proceed to trial. This case is different: federal felony charges, a conspiracy statute designed for the Ku Klux Klan, and two federal judges who initially said no before a grand jury said yes.

The Gray Zone Defined

Federal authorities have undisputed constitutional authority to enforce the law. A 2012 Supreme Court case established that the federal government has broad power over immigration, based on the Constitution’s grant of federal power over citizenship and foreign relations.

State and local governments have constitutional protection against being forced to participate in that work. The principle, established in Printz and expanded in Murphy, means the federal government can’t force states to enforce federal laws.

But what happens when federal authorities use their power not to enforce law, but to pressure states into abandoning their non-cooperation policies? What happens when journalists recording demonstrations against that action face federal conspiracy charges? What happens when the line between legitimate federal operations and federal pressure becomes impossible to distinguish?

Different parts of the Constitution support different answers. The part of the Constitution that says federal law overrides state law says federal law is supreme. The Tenth Amendment says powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. The First Amendment protects press freedom and political speech. The Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable seizures. Which principle wins depends on which judge you ask, which appeals court hears the case, and which administration is in power.

Legal scholar Huyen Pham argues that current law ignores how federal enforcement harms state power, including “undermining democracy by preventing local governments from making their own law enforcement decisions” and threatening the system that keeps power balanced between federal and state governments.

Many jurisdictions have concluded that aggressive operations divert police resources from violent and property crime, and that they disrupt the trust and cooperation between immigrant communities and law enforcement needed to combat serious crimes.

The Trump administration has described sanctuary policies as obstruction rather than legitimate policy choices, and has used criminal prosecution, large enforcement surges and threats of funding cuts to press for compliance.

What’s at Stake

The outcome of Don Lemon’s case and Minnesota’s constitutional challenge will shape how enforcement is divided between federal and state governments for years. If the prosecution of Lemon and Fort succeeds, it establishes that journalists recording demonstrations face federal criminal jeopardy for their reporting. If Minnesota’s lawsuit prevails, it establishes that federal authorities cannot use massive deployments as a means of coercing state compliance with federal policies.

These cases raise fundamental questions about the proper role of state and local governments in the federal system, the scope of federal criminal law, the protection of First Amendment freedoms, and the constitutional balance of power between federal and state authority.

The sanctuary policy debate is a fight over how much power the federal government should have compared to states—over the question of how much authority the federal government possesses to compel state and local governments to participate in federal operations, and how much protection the Constitution affords to state and local decisions to refuse such participation.

A U.S. citizen was fatally shot by an ICE agent while sitting in her vehicle. Demonstrators disrupted a church service to object to a pastor who runs the local ICE office. A journalist covering that demonstration was charged with federal felonies. Over 2,000 federal officers are deployed to a state with below-average undocumented rates. Federal officials have tied the deployment to the state’s sanctuary policies. A federal judge declined to halt the operation while constitutional challenges proceed.

The legal gray zone that sanctuary policies occupy—where federal authority to enforce law is undisputed but the federal right to compel state participation remains contested, where federal criminal prosecution of demonstrators and journalists meets constitutional limits that remain incompletely defined—will continue to generate litigation, constitutional controversy, and political conflict until courts rule clearly or Congress passes a new law.

The Constitution protects both federal authority and state autonomy. It protects both public safety and press freedom. It protects both the right to worship and the right to demonstrate. When those protections collide, someone has to decide which one wins. Right now, that decision is being made in federal courtrooms across the country, in cases involving journalists, demonstrators, sanctuary cities, and a constitutional doctrine that says the federal government cannot force states to do its work.