Open letter to Rutland and other municipalities looking to adopt resolutions or policies prohibiting or limiting federal ICE Enforcement activities.
By Greg Thayer
Recent discussion by the Rutland City Board of Aldermen regarding a resolution to keep Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) “out of Rutland” revealed a troubling misunderstanding of Constitutional law and Federal authority. While emotions surrounding immigration are understandable, public policy—especially at the municipal level—must be grounded in law, not fear or political symbolism.
Immigration law and enforcement are not local matters. They are exclusively Federal responsibilities under the United States Constitution. Article VI, Section II known as the Supremacy Clause; it states that the Constitution and Federal laws “shall be the supreme Law of the Land” (U.S. Const. Art. VI, Sec.II). The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that Federal immigration law preempts conflicting state or local action (Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387, 394–97 (2012)). No city resolution, ordinance, or policy can override, nullify, or “trump” Federal law.
During the meeting, statements were made suggesting that ICE could take individuals into custody at any time, day or night, without warrants or oversight, and that this city resolution somehow protects against that. This framing is wrong, misleading and fuels unnecessary fear.
ICE operates under Federal statutory authority granted by Congress (8 U.S.C. §§ 1226, 1357). Federal immigration officers may make warrantless arrests in public places where there is probable cause to believe an individual is removable under Federal law (8 U.S.C. § 1357(a)(2)). However, ICE may not enter a private home without consent or a judicial warrant, consistent with Fourth Amendment protections (Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 (1980)). These distinctions are critical and should not be blurred in public discussion. And every Federal Agent knows the laws, and studied it.
Supporters of the resolution often invoke the Tenth Amendment and the “anti-commandeering” doctrine. This doctrine is real and well established. The Supreme Court has held that the Federal government may not compel state or local governments to enforce Federal regulatory programs (Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898, 935 (1997); Murphy v. NCAA, 584 U.S. 453, 477 (2018)). Under this principle, Rutland may choose not to use local police, funds, or personnel, jails to assist ICE.
However, that is the full extent of municipal authority. Anti-commandeering does not give cities the power to interfere with Federal enforcement or prevent Federal agents from carrying out their lawful duties. The Supreme Court explicitly rejected state or local attempts to obstruct Federal immigration enforcement in Arizona v. United States, holding that such actions are preempted by Federal law (567 U.S. at 410–11).
A city may decline cooperation, but it may not prohibit ICE from operating within city limits, require local approval for Federal enforcement, or declare Federal actions unlawful. Any resolution implying otherwise is symbolic only and constitutionally unenforceable.
Equally concerning was the assertion that the resolution “complies with the U.S. Constitution” without acknowledging these limits. Such compliance exists only if the resolution is narrowly confined to internal city policy. Once it attempts to block or regulate Federal authority, it violates the Supremacy Clause.
Words matter, especially when spoken by elected officials. Misstating Constitutional authority creates confusion, raises false expectations, and erodes public trust. Residents deserve clarity, not rhetoric suggesting that a city can shield individuals from Federal law when it legally cannot.
This commentary is not an argument for or against immigration policy. Americans may reasonably disagree on what those policies should be. But under our Constitutional system, those debates belong in Congress, not in municipal resolutions that misrepresent the law. Upholding the Constitution means respecting both its protections and its limits,
Greg Thayer is a Rutland resident and former candidate for lieutenant governor.