Jessica Rios
Associate Editor
Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2026
As the Trump administration ushers in a new era of mass deportation and hysteria, “sanctuary” communities like Chicago are more important now than ever. The term “sanctuary” generally refers to states, counties or cities that have policies that limit the extent to which a local officials will cooperate with federal agencies’ efforts to deport undocumented persons. Recently, regulations concerning detention and deportations of undocumented immigrants have rapidly devolved, along with what protections they offered to these communities. Previous regulations were similarly deferential to federal enforcement agencies, particularly U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). However, the current administration is actively working to broaden federal authorities’ power to deport immigrants who are not lawfully in the U.S. and have been accused, rather than convicted, of crimes. One way the administration seeks to do so is by loosening its regulation of the methods ICE may use to conduct arrests as well as the role state and local law enforcement may play in such operations. Biden administration’s discontinuing the practice of mass immigration sweeps at worksites such as factories is just one of the limitations that has been discarded. This leaves already fragile protections for undocumented persons to the wayside, resulting in unnecessary harm and suffering to thousands of undocumented persons and citizens.
Established law
Under the Immigration and Nationality Act 287(a)(3), the U.S. Customs and Border Protection Office of Border Patrol has authority to patrol areas and neighborhoods that are located “within a reasonable distance” from the border. This provision limits Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by allowing Customs and Border Protection agents to enter and search buses, trains, boats and aircrafts within 100 miles of a land or sea border without a warrant.
In Mathews v. Diaz the Supreme Court held that the Fifth Amendment protects persons whose presence in the country is unlawful from discrimination by the Federal Government stating,“[e]ven one whose presence in this country is unlawful, involuntary, or transitory is entitled to that constitutional protection.” The Court later held in Plyler v. Doe that the Equal Protections Clause of the 14th Amendment applies to persons regardless of immigration or legal status, “[w]hatever his status under the immigration laws, an alien is surely a ‘person’ in any ordinary sense of that term.”
Limitations on who ICE may detain and methods of arresting and detaining undocumented persons are necessary to protect Due Process and Fourth Amendment rights. This concept is not new, but sanctuary cities and States are now instrumental to resisting federal attempts to diminish those rights. Sanctuary communities have implemented their own policies, but additional regulations at the state level, such as barring local officials from working with ICE to locate and deport persons not yet convicted of a crime, may be necessary as anti-immigrant operations continue.
Deregulation under the Trump administration
On January 20th, 2025, the Trump administration’s acting homeland security secretary issued a memo reversing the Biden administration’s immigration guidelines on “sensitive locations.” This Biden-era policy instructed ICE and Customs and Border Protection to forego arrests of unauthorized immigrants at or near locations “that would restrain people’s access to essential services or engagement in essential activities.” Some of these locations included schools, hospitals, and places of worship. The underlying principle is that enforcement can be do and should be done without threatening individuals’ access to basic necessities such as medical care, school, food and shelter. For mixed-status families, these limitations help ensure that their families stay together, that parents are able to take their children to school without fear of being detained, that siblings are not torn apart simply because one was born in the U.S. and the other was not.
Executive order Protecting the American People Against Invasion Sec. 11 allows the Secretary of Homeland Security to authorize state and local law enforcement officials to perform the functions of immigration officers in investigation, apprehension or detention operations. State and local officers who are deputized by the DHS are bound by the Immigration and Nationality Act and federal immigration law regulations. Given the recent and active expansion of immigration operations, however, sanctuary states must brace for the impending aftermath of such aggressive efforts to eradicate undocumented individuals, especially amid threats to federal funding.
The Trump administration has further eroded regulations on immigration detentions and arrests with the signing of the Laken Riley Act. Prior memos under Biden limited ICE arrests to “serious criminals, national security threats and recent border arrivals.” Rather than focusing efforts on individuals who have committed more serious crimes, the Act requires the Department of Homeland Security and ICE to detain any migrant who is arrested or charged with minor non-violent crimes such as shoplifting. Meaning, even minor crimes are a basis for initiating deportation proceedings. This feature of the Act is an expansion of ICE’s authority and further undermines the right to Due Process. Moreover, the Act itself is yet another means of dehumanizing an entire population hidden beneath a political disguise to “fight crime.”
Currently, there is no clear solution to the flood of mass deportation efforts. However, over 40 sanctuary cities, including Chicago, recently joined forces at the Seeking Sanctuary convention where officials exchanged policy innovations, litigation strategies and methods for disrupting Trump’s deportation policies. Though a remarkable step, it is imperative that sanctuary communities follow through on these plans by continuing to fight via litigation, policies, and refuse to submit in spite of backlash. These innovations must build on one another well into the Trump administration, not only on behalf of their own residents, but also for those whose governments will not protect them. Sanctuary communities must stand in solidarity with one another as they resist the harm deregulation has already done. Without this solidarity, only more suffering will come for undocumented persons who have built their lives alongside the everyone else who call the U.S. “home.”