In the wake of high-profile incidents and stepped-up federal enforcement, U.S. states are sharply divided over how to handle Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). On Jan. 14, 2026, students in St. Paul rallied at the State Capitol as debate intensified after the deaths of Renee Macklin Good and Alex Pretti prompted fresh scrutiny of federal immigration operations. Some Democratic-led states are pursuing limits on local cooperation and new accountability measures, while several Republican-led states are expanding formal ties with ICE and proposing stricter penalties for people living in the country without authorization. The result is a patchwork of laws and proposals that could reshape how enforcement plays out on the ground across the country.
Key Takeaways
- Following a January 2026 surge of ICE activity in Minnesota and Chicago, at least one state commission (Illinois) is collecting citizen reports and recommending prosecutions related to federal agents’ conduct.
- Illinois law currently permits civil suits against federal agents; the Justice Department has sued to block that statute and similar bills are under consideration in New York, California, Colorado and Oregon.
- Republican-led states such as Tennessee and Kentucky are expanding cooperation with ICE; Tennessee now offers grants to local agencies that sign agreements with the agency and is weighing mandatory participation.
- Tennessee is piloting legislation influenced by White House policy staff that would restrict access to driver and professional licenses and many government benefits for people lacking legal status.
- Indiana and New Hampshire recently tightened requirements for local cooperation or banned sanctuary-city policies, respectively, signaling a broader state-level push to aid federal enforcement.
- Democratic-led states — including California, Illinois, New York, Maine and Massachusetts — are advancing measures to limit cooperation, create safe zones, set up tip lines, or enable civil suits against federal agents.
- Minnesota’s upcoming legislative session could produce new state protections, including a bill to let residents sue federal agents and renter protections tied to immigration enforcement.
- Legal experts say states can investigate and, in some cases, prosecute federal officials under state criminal law; claims of blanket immunity for ICE agents are legally contested.
Background
Federal immigration enforcement has become more visible and aggressive since the change in administration in 2025, with targeted operations announced as part of national removal priorities. That increased activity produced high-profile encounters and, in some cases, fatalities that reinvigorated debates about civil-liberties safeguards and local responsibility. Historically, states have taken different approaches to federal immigration work: some adopted sanctuary policies limiting local cooperation, while others built formal partnerships with ICE for information sharing and transfers.
The legal relationship between federal agents and state authorities is complex. Federal supremacy gives Washington broad powers on immigration, but that does not automatically erase state criminal statutes or civil remedies. Over recent decades, courts have occasionally allowed states to enforce criminal laws against federal personnel when those laws are neutral and generally applicable, although each case raises novel separation-of-powers questions. Political polarization has pushed state legislatures to test those boundaries through new statutes and enforcement practices.
Main Event
After an ICE operation in Chicago last year and a separate surge in Minnesota, Illinois created the Illinois Accountability Commission to gather evidence from residents about ICE conduct and to make recommendations, including possible prosecutions. The commission is chaired by former federal judge Rubén Castillo, who has said the group is in talks with local prosecutors and law enforcement about possible criminal referrals. Prosecutors in Philadelphia and parts of California have also publicly signaled they are considering criminal charges tied to federal agents’ conduct.
At the same time, the Trump administration challenged Illinois’s civil-liability law that permits suits against federal agents, arguing the statute infringes on federal authority. Similar civil provisions have been proposed by Democrats in New York, California, Colorado and Oregon, heightening a national legal fight over whether states can open their courts to claims against federal immigration officers.
In Republican-controlled states, lawmakers have moved in the opposite direction. Tennessee enacted a grant program to incentivize local law-enforcement agreements with ICE; since the program’s passage last year, many sheriff’s offices and police departments signed formal pacts. Lawmakers are considering forcing participation rather than leaving it voluntary. Kentucky and Indiana have pursued parallel measures to increase local cooperation, and New Hampshire recently banned sanctuary-city policies.
Tennessee’s package includes proposals drafted with input from the White House policy team that would bar people without legal status from buying cars, obtaining certain professional credentials, or accessing many public benefits. State lawmakers frame these steps as protecting taxpayer resources and strengthening public safety, while advocates warn they would deepen vulnerability for immigrant communities and complicate basic life needs.
Analysis & Implications
These divergent state actions are likely to produce legal skirmishes and uneven enforcement across state lines. If states expand civil remedies or pursue criminal charges against federal agents, litigation over preemption and immunity will almost certainly reach higher courts. The Justice Department’s lawsuits against state statutes already signal an aggressive federal legal response; outcomes in those cases will set precedents for whether states can authorize private suits or local prosecutions tied to federal enforcement actions.
For migrants and communities, the policy split means widely different day-to-day experiences depending on location. In states that deepen cooperation with ICE, immigrants can expect stronger local-federal coordination, more detentions, and administrative barriers to employment or licensing. In contrast, states that limit cooperation or build safe zones could reduce local arrests tied to immigration checks, but those protections often rely on limited statutes and may be vulnerable to legal challenge.
Politically, immigration enforcement has become a state-level litmus test. Republican-led proposals are framed as restoring rule-of-law and protecting public funds, messaging that plays well in conservative constituencies. Democratic-led measures emphasize civil rights and community stability, aiming to shield vulnerable residents and preserve trust between immigrant groups and local institutions. Both approaches carry governance costs: increased litigation for restrictive or permissive laws, and fiscal or administrative burdens for states implementing new programs or tiplines.
Comparison & Data
| State | Recent move | Direction |
|---|---|---|
| Illinois | Created Accountability Commission; civil-suit law in place | Limit cooperation / accountability |
| Minnesota | Legislature to consider civil-suit bill and renter protections | Limit cooperation / protections |
| Tennessee | Grant program for agencies working with ICE; proposals to mandate participation | Expand cooperation / enforcement |
| Indiana | Senate passed measure to tighten local requirements to cooperate | Expand cooperation |
| New Hampshire | Banned sanctuary cities | Expand cooperation |
| California | State limits on cooperation under litigation | Limit cooperation / contested |
The table illustrates a clear regional and partisan pattern but also shows cross-cutting local factors: states with large immigrant populations or activist coalitions often push accountability measures, while states prioritizing enforcement have targeted administrative levers such as licensing and local agency grants. Those differences will shape how frequently federal operations translate into local arrests, detentions or community disruption.
Reactions & Quotes
Officials, legal experts and community activists have voiced contrasting views as state lawmakers consider new steps.
“There is no structural or blanket barrier to states bringing a criminal prosecution against federal officials,”
Harrison Stark, University of Wisconsin Law School State Democracy Research Initiative (legal expert)
Stark’s point has been cited by state officials exploring prosecutions; legal scholars note, however, that prosecuting federal officers raises novel separation-of-powers questions that courts may soon resolve. Prosecutors will need concrete evidence of state-law violations to proceed.
“We’re not spending taxpayer dollars on you unless you’re in jail,”
Cameron Sexton, Tennessee House Speaker (Republican official)
Sexton used that formulation when describing Tennessee’s proposed restrictions on benefits and licensing. Supporters say the measures conserve state resources; critics counter they would push immigrants into informal economies and increase marginalization.
“We are collecting evidence and talking to law enforcement about possible prosecutions,”
Rubén Castillo, chair, Illinois Accountability Commission (commission official)
Castillo’s remarks summarize the commission’s dual focus on documentation and potential criminal referrals; the commission has stated its aim is to produce recommendations for accountability and policy change.
Unconfirmed
- Whether state-level prosecutions of federal agents will be filed; commissions and prosecutors are reportedly exploring options but no major criminal charges have been filed publicly as of early February 2026.
- The precise scope and enforceability of Tennessee’s proposed bans on purchases or licensing for people without legal status remain subject to legislative change and potential legal challenge.
- The effectiveness of tip lines (for example, Maine’s) in producing verifiable evidence usable in court or policy proceedings is not yet demonstrated.
- Outcomes of the Justice Department’s lawsuits challenging state civil-liability laws are pending and could alter whether private suits against federal agents proceed.
Bottom Line
The United States is seeing a devolution of immigration policy enforcement and oversight to the states, producing divergent approaches that reflect political control, local priorities and recent high-profile incidents. Some states are strengthening ties with ICE and tightening immigration-related eligibility for licenses and benefits; others are building legal shields, accountability mechanisms and community protections. Those choices will produce materially different consequences for immigrants, local governments and federal-state relations.
Because many proposals are new and face legal challenges, the landscape will be shaped as much by courts as by legislatures. Observers should watch pending litigation over civil-suit statutes and any filing of criminal charges against federal agents as key bellwethers of how durable state limits or expansions of cooperation will be. For communities on the ground, the practical effect will be a patchwork of safety, risk and administrative burdens determined by state lines rather than consistent national policy.
Sources
- NPR (news report summarizing state responses and interviews)
- University of Wisconsin Law School (academic commentary / State Democracy Research Initiative)