Several months after the DC Conference of Mayors, the tide is changing

The streets of Minneapolis may be quieter now that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has withdrawn from its surge there. Some of the businesses that closed down have re-opened. Residents are no longer under a daily siege.

But to assume that ICE does not remain a threat in American cities, or that this flashpoint in American history hasn’t left a lasting mark, would be wrong. Just this past weekend, tens of thousands rallied to protest this administration and the harm it has caused.

As Public Rights Project continues its work supporting mayors who want to protect their communities against ICE, I’ve been reminded of conversations I was part of at the biannual winter meeting of the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Washington, D.C. At this January meeting, at the height of the ICE enforcement surge in Minneapolis, attendees were on edge. At a session on immigration enforcement led by Denver Mayor Mike Johnston, I shared an assessment of the current state of federal actions, just as tensions between the federal government and local leaders were continuing to escalate.

What stood out to me was that the mood in the room was unmistakably mixed. The panel conversation, and comments made by mayors during the Q&A, revealed a variety of standpoints about the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown.

Some — like Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey — were steadfast in their desire to push back and spoke forcefully about the need for local governments to resist federal actions. Others were more ambivalent: expressing a real fear of retribution should they stand up to the federal government or trying to toe a fine line of supporting immigrants without drawing undue attention. Mayors of both parties asked how they would prepare if ICE came to their cities, and how they would protect their communities if this happened.

This conversation offered a glimpse into the complexities of the moment.

Since then, ICE enforcement hasn’t stopped. It has become less visible. And as the number of arrests pile up, ICE has been looking for more and more space to house those detained. Over the past few months, ICE has purchased or attempted to purchase huge warehouses, which they plan to re-purpose as detention facilities. Communities from Oklahoma to New Jersey are rallying against the opening of new facilities. Now, four months later — and now that public disapproval of ICE has risen by 11 points compared to last summer, all political affiliations combined — local political resolve has solidified.

More mayors are standing up for their communities’ ability to live without fear. After its January convening, the U.S. Conference of Mayors signed onto a Public Rights Project amicus brief pushing back against the Trump administration’s efforts to compel the state of Minnesota, the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul, and Hennepin County to enforce its pro-deportation immigration policies. This is the first time the Conference of Mayors has joined an effort of this kind.

And meanwhile, Public Rights Project has continued to leverage its network to bring a united front together against the administration’s actions. As just one example, during the ICE surge in Minnesota, Public Rights Project filed a brief opposing its unlawful deployment, signed by over 80 local governments and leaders. We have also filed briefs in support of Minnesota, four New Jersey cities, Rochester, New York, and New York City, in cases that the U.S. Department of Justice has brought as enforcement actions against so-called sanctuary cities.

We’re also working with individual cities, for example, representing Boston in a case to dismiss a federal lawsuit against the city against the Boston Trust Act, which directs Boston police and other city officials not to detain immigrants for potential deportation unless a criminal arrest warrant has been issued for them.

The administration has made a bet that its retribution against cities that disagree with its policies will lead to fear and division. It’s a bet it is losing. Four months ago, mayors were quietly asking each other whether they could afford to resist. Today, many of them have their answers.