After the deaths of two American citizens in Minneapolis at the hands of federal agents, Democratic legislators across the country, aided by libertarian groups, are redoubling their efforts to restrict and challenge federal immigration tactics in their states.
A Colorado bill that was introduced in mid-January would enable individuals to sue federal law enforcement officials for civil rights violations.
In Delaware, a bill similar to one that was filed in New York last spring would prevent commercial airlines from receiving jet fuel tax exemptions if they transport people detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement without warrants and due process.
And in the wake of the killing on Saturday of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, a California lawmaker said he would sponsor two bills, one to require that any shooting by ICE agents be subject to an independent state investigation, and another to bar ICE from using state properties as a staging area for federal operations.
Ever since the second Trump administration embarked on its large-scale deportation effort, Democratic-leaning states have proposed — and passed, in some instances — countermeasures, such as banning masked or unidentified law enforcement officers. Last month, a dozen legislators from seven states announced that they would coordinate legislation in 2026 to complement the litigation already being used by Democratic attorneys general to challenge immigration policies.
But after the killings of both Mr. Pretti and Renee Good, a resident protesting ICE’s presence in the Twin Cities, those endeavors have gained more urgency, according to lawmakers and immigration rights groups.
“I do think that we are starting to see legislators who, last session, were afraid of being a thorn in the side of an ascendant Trump administration — they were so afraid of poking the bear,” said Naureen Shah, who leads the American Civil Liberties Union’s immigration and advocacy work. “The tide is now turning, and maybe they feel that they’ve got nothing to lose.”
Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, questioned the motives of all those state-level Democrats.
“Democrats don’t care about the rule of law,” she said. “If they did, they would support the president’s law-and-order agenda, which includes enforcing federal immigration law. Instead, Democrats are openly undermining the rule of law to protect criminal illegal aliens.”
Some states that are controlled by Republicans have gone the opposite direction. A new bill in the South Carolina legislature would mandate that all county sheriffs enter into formal agreements to work with ICE. Tennessee Republicans want government agencies to check the legal status of all residents as a condition of receiving public assistance, and also to verify the immigration status of elementary and secondary school students, despite a decade-old Supreme Court ruling that forbadeit.
With most state legislatures back in session, patterns are emerging out of the dozens of bills that are active or being discussed, said Gaby Goldstein, the founder of State Futures, which organizes progressive lawmakers nationally and tracks legislation.
Many are related to rule-of-law concerns and civil rights protections.
The Colorado proposal, for instance, mirrors ones in California, Washington, Wisconsin and elsewhere that seek to establish a private right of action, which would give individuals or organizations the ability to file civil lawsuits for constitutional violations in state court, rather than on the federal courts, said State Senator Mike Weissman, the bill’s primary sponsor and a lawyer by trade. He represents the Denver suburb of Aurora, which Mr. Trump has said has been “taken over” by Venezuelan gangs. His bill would take aim at civil immigration enforcement, he said, “not police officers doing ordinary work.”
Though the legislation would apply to ICE and other branches of the Department of Homeland Security, he emphasized that the bill focuses on conduct that would violate constitutional rights rather than on employees of any particular branch of government.
“I mean, to use a crazy example, if Trump starts mobilizing park service employees to go crack heads and violate the Fourth Amendment, they’re going to find themselves answerable as well,” he said.
He has been working with the Institute for Justice, a libertarian group that has long battled against federal overreach. One of its cases involves a construction worker in Alabama of Mexican descent who, despite being a U.S. citizen and showing his REAL ID, was detained twice by masked agents.
Under current legal standards, Anya Bidwell, a senior attorney for the Institute for Justice, said individuals find it hard to sue state and local officials, and all but impossible to sue federal ones, who have broader immunity. And with the Supreme Court and Congress showing no appetite to step in, she said it is incumbent upon a state to “protect its own citizens.”
“Power works in a way that once you have it, you try to accumulate more and more and more of it,” she said. “And it’s really important to be able to fight back and to be able to enforce the rights that are guaranteed to us as individuals. That really shouldn’t be a partisan issue.”
That sensibility is also guiding State Senator Anthony Broadman, a first-term Democrat who represents a swing district in Bend, Ore., and is trying to appeal to conservatives who might remember when they were the ones outraged by federal recklessness.
Oregonians, Mr. Broadman said, still remember the armed sieges in Ruby Ridge, Idaho, and in the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge in eastern Oregon, he said, “where conservatives have been harmed by the federal government.” So he hopes to introduce a bill similar to the one in Colorado that would apply to federal constitutional violations, but would not be limited to immigration.
“It’s not just liberals and immigrants who get hurt by the United States, when they violate people’s rights,” he said.
Other targets of state-level Democratic bills include banning agreements that delegate some federal immigration powers to state and municipal law enforcement agencies (Hawaii, Massachusetts, Vermont) and banning masked or unidentified law enforcement officers (Maryland, Arizona, Virginia).
A bill in Washington would limit the ability of federal immigrant agents to enter child care centers, health care facilities and election sites without a warrant or court order. And in Maryland, one lawmaker wants to prevent ICE agents who were recruited by the Trump administration from later working for any state law enforcement agencies.
Democrats are also hoping to gain more traction on bills introduced last year that would use fiscal tools to clamp down on immigration tactics, such as by restricting public contracting with companies that work with ICE.
Lawmakers in Maryland and New York have proposed that if the federal government withholds money that the state is owed, in defiance of court decisions, then they would place liens on federally owned properties.
The Trump administration has already begun to fight back. The Department of Justice sued Illinois in December after the Democratic governor, JB Pritzker, signed a law making it easier for state residents to sue immigration agents. Federal lawyers argued that the law placed the agents in physical harm and at financial risk.
One state whose legislature is not scheduled to meet until Feb. 17 is Minnesota. But already, legislators are hammering out bills in response to Ms. Good’s death, such as prohibiting or limiting ICE agents from entering sensitive places such as hospitals, schools and group homes, said State Senator Erin Murphy, the chamber’s top Democrat, a nurse by training.
Another proposal — which she believes has not been introduced elsewhere — would require that federal agents operating in Minnesota meet the same kind of training requirements now in place for local law enforcement — including providing first aid. ICE agents appeared to reject offers to aid Ms. Good after she was shot, including from a man who identified himself as a doctor.
There are no Republican co-sponsors yet for any of the proposed bills. But Ms. Murphy did note that Representative Marion Rarick,who represents a reliably Republican district about 45 minutes northwest of Minneapolis, had posted on Facebook that “ICE must stop racial profiling and violating civil rights as has been experienced and documented by LAW ENFORCEMENT. Full stop. No excuses. Just stop.”
Laurel Rosenhall contributed reporting
David W. Chen is a Times reporter focused on state legislatures, state level policymaking and the political forces behind them.
The post As Minneapolis Rages, Legislators Move to Restrict ICE in Their States appeared first on New York Times.
