When ICE Comes to Town: What Pennsylvania Cities and Counties Can (and Cannot) Do
Across Pennsylvania, municipalities are increasingly confronting a difficult and often misunderstood question: what authority, if any, do cities and counties have when federal immigration enforcement actions occur within their jurisdictions? Recent reporting highlights a growing trend of local governments enacting legislation or policies designed to clarify their role when Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) conducts operations. These efforts reflect a broader legal and political tension between federal supremacy in immigration enforcement and the autonomy of local governments under state law.
Federal Authority and the Limits of Local Resistance
At the outset, it is critical to understand that immigration enforcement is a function of the federal government. ICE possesses clear statutory authority to enforce immigration laws nationwide, including within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. No local ordinance or county policy can prevent federal agents from executing valid warrants, making arrests authorized under federal law, or otherwise carrying out lawful enforcement actions. This principle derives from the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, which establishes that federal law preempts conflicting state or local measures.
However, the more nuanced and legally significant question is not whether ICE can operate in Pennsylvania, but rather whether local governments are required to assist in those operations. In most instances, the answer is no. Federal immigration enforcement frequently depends on cooperation from local law enforcement agencies, particularly in the context of detention, information sharing, and access to individuals held in county facilities. Yet, absent specific federal statutory mandates, such cooperation is generally voluntary.
The Importance of Galarza v. Szalczyk
This distinction has been shaped in large part by federal court precedent binding on Pennsylvania. In Galarza v. Szalczyk, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit held that ICE detainers—requests that local jurisdictions hold individuals beyond their scheduled release—are not mandatory commands. Instead, they are requests that local authorities may choose to honor or decline. The court further made clear that compliance with such detainers may expose municipalities to liability if the continued detention violates the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition against unreasonable seizures. As a result, counties that hold individuals solely on the basis of an ICE detainer, without a judicial warrant or independent legal basis, risk civil liability.
In response to this legal framework, municipalities across Pennsylvania have adopted a range of approaches. Some have enacted what are often described as “welcoming” or “non-cooperation” policies, which limit the use of local resources in federal immigration enforcement. These policies may prohibit local law enforcement from honoring detainers without a judicial warrant, restrict information sharing with federal agencies, or limit ICE access to local detention facilities. Proponents argue that such measures promote public safety by fostering trust between immigrant communities and local police, thereby encouraging the reporting of crimes and cooperation with investigations.
Other jurisdictions have taken a more moderate approach, permitting cooperation with ICE but imposing procedural safeguards. These policies may require supervisory approval before responding to federal requests, mandate verification of legal authority, or limit the duration and conditions under which individuals may be held. Still other counties continue to cooperate more fully with federal authorities, including entering into formal agreements or providing detention space for immigration purposes. The resulting landscape is highly fragmented, with enforcement realities varying significantly from one jurisdiction to another.
The Practical and Legal Consequences
Despite these local variations, there are clear limits to what municipal legislation can achieve. Local governments cannot interfere with federal enforcement operations, nor can they create legal barriers that prevent ICE from executing its statutory duties. At the same time, they retain discretion over the use of their own personnel and resources, subject to constitutional constraints and applicable state law. This balance, between federal authority and local autonomy, lies at the heart of the current wave of policy initiatives across the Commonwealth.
The practical implications of this evolving legal environment are substantial. For municipalities, the primary concern is liability. As courts have increasingly scrutinized the legality of detainer-based detention, local governments must carefully evaluate the risks associated with cooperation. For practitioners, particularly those representing noncitizens in removal proceedings or related matters, it is essential to understand the specific policies in place within each jurisdiction. The likelihood of detention, transfer to federal custody, or release can depend heavily on local practice.
For individuals and families, the consequences are equally significant. The presence or absence of local cooperation can affect not only the risk of detention, but also access to counsel, the timing of proceedings, and overall case strategy. In this context, community education and proactive legal planning are critical. Individuals should be informed of their rights, including the requirement that law enforcement generally present a valid judicial warrant to enter a home, and the distinction between criminal and civil immigration enforcement.
Pennsylvania is experiencing a period of legal and policy development in which local governments are actively defining their role in relation to federal immigration enforcement. While ICE retains broad authority to operate within the Commonwealth, municipalities are not obligated to facilitate that enforcement and must weigh competing considerations of public safety, constitutional compliance, and legal exposure. As this landscape continues to evolve, careful legal analysis and informed decision-making will remain essential for both public officials and practitioners navigating these complex issues.