On a crisp morning in the nation’s capital, golden light filtering through Washington’s grand columns, the age-old question of power and place seemed to hang in the air like a slow-moving leaf in autumn. What does it mean when one level of government calls upon another to help shoulder a burden? What threads bind city hall to the vast machinery of the federal state? In the unfolding drama over cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), these questions take on a very real texture—like the changing colors of a long-lit sky before night descends.

For many cities often described in political shorthand as “blue cities,” the question of cooperating with ICE is not an abstract theory but a lived challenge rooted in community trust, public safety, and competing responsibilities. Federal lawmakes clear that the United States government alone holds authority over immigration enforcement, and programs such as Section 287(g) allow local law enforcement to partner voluntarily with federal agents under formal agreements. But voluntary is the key phrase: neither the Constitution nor current law permits the president to compel cities to enforce federal immigration statutes as if they were extensions of a federal police force.

Yet the political and policy push underway seeks to test these limits. In recent weeks, some state legislatures have moved to expand cooperation with federal authorities, introducing legislation that would penalize non-compliance unless local jurisdictions share information, detain individuals at ICE’s request, or otherwise align their enforcement priorities. Meanwhile, federal officials have issued ultimatums to cities such as Boston to respond to immigration enforcement deadlines or risk being labeled uncooperative.

In other cities, the response has taken a different shape. Chicago’s mayor, for example, directed local police to actively investigate any alleged misconduct by ICE agents operating in the city—a move that underscores tensions between city prerogatives and federal enforcement actions. And in Minneapolis, President Trump publicly chastised the mayor for resisting cooperation, framing that reluctance as a violation of federal law, even as legal precedent affirms that local participation in federal immigration enforcement cannot be forced.

The constitutional backdrop is long-standing. The so-called anti-commandeering doctrine, rooted in the Tenth Amendment, affirms that federal law cannot conscript state or local governments to enforce federal regulatory programs. Courts have routinely underscored that while the federal government may pursue its immigration agenda, it cannot legally compel state and local authorities to become its enforcement arm in ways that undermine local governance.

For now, the debate plays out at meetings, in courtrooms, and in the language of executive orders and legislative proposals. Some leaders seek cooperation with ICE in the belief that shared enforcement advances public safety, while others emphasize community policing and protections from federal overreach. What holds these debates together is not a single answer but a shared sense of the stakes involved in how America manages the balance between federal power and local autonomy.

In the coming months, these tensions are expected to feature in lawsuits and legislative battles across multiple jurisdictions. As it stands today, legal experts and courts generally agree that the federal government lacks the authority to force blue cities to cooperate with ICE beyond voluntary agreements or incentives. But the conversation over immigration enforcement—and the practical realities of intergovernmental cooperation—will likely continue to evolve.

AI Image Disclaimer Illustrations were produced with AI and serve as conceptual depictions.

Sources Lawfare Media Indiana Capital Chronicle NBC Boston Reuters Reuters