title
DISCUSSION OF A POLICY PROHIBITING FEDERAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES AT CITY FACILITIES
recommended action
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Council Legislation/Environmental Committee receive this informational report and provide direction to staff regarding the potential development of a policy prohibiting the use of City-owned or controlled facilities for federal civil immigration enforcement activities, including those conducted by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), and if appropriate, forward to the full City Council for review.
body
Summary
This informational report provides an overview of policy approaches that prohibit the use of City-owned facilities for federal immigration enforcement purposes. Several California cities have enacted "ICE-free zone" policies that prohibit ICE from using city-owned facilities or resources for civil immigration actions. Major jurisdictions with these policies include: San Jose, Pasadena, Los Angeles, Sacramento, San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, Pinole and Richmond.
This report outlines key considerations, operational implications, and policy options should the City wish to pursue a similar direction in Stockton.
DISCUSSION
Background
Local governments throughout California have adopted policies clarifying their role in relation to federal immigration enforcement. These policies are generally intended to:
• Preserve access to City services and facilities
• Maintain trust between residents and local government
• Ensure City resources are used in alignment with local priorities
Federal agencies, including ICE, retain authority to enforce federal immigration laws. However, local jurisdictions are not required to provide access to municipal facilities or resources to support such enforcement.
The State of California has also established a broader legal framework through laws such as the California Values Act (SB 54), which limits the use of local resources for immigration enforcement purposes, with certain exceptions.
Present Situation
Peer City Approaches
City of San Jose
In January 2026, the City of San Jose adopted a policy prohibiting the use of City-owned facilities for immigration enforcement staging or operations (Attachment A - City of San Jose Resolution RES2026-5).
Key provisions include:
• Prohibits use of City facilities such as:
o Libraries
o Community centers
o Parking lots and garages
• Applies broadly to City-owned and controlled properties
• Includes installation of signage at public facilities
• Establishes internal reporting protocols for City staff
The policy is intended to ensure City facilities remain accessible to all residents and are not used in a manner that could discourage community participation.
City of Pasadena
The City of Pasadena has adopted policies and resolutions reinforcing limitations on the use of City resources for immigration enforcement (Attachment B - City of Pasadena Resolution 9557). In February 2026, the Council approved the Immigration Enforcement Protection Resolution.
Key provisions include:
• Prohibits use of City property for immigration enforcement activities, including city-controlled parking lots and garages
• Affirms that City staff do not enforce federal immigration law
• Limits the collection and sharing of immigration-related information, except as required by law
• Reinforces a Citywide approach to non-cooperation with civil immigration enforcement
• Instructs the City Manager, City Attorney & Police Chief to craft formal interaction protocols between Pasadena Police Department and federal immigration agents
• Requires businesses bidding on city contracts to disclose affiliations with the Department of Homeland Security, and to evaluate further restrictions
Pasadena’s policy framework builds upon earlier resolutions and reflects a broader strategy to support immigrant communities while remaining compliant with federal and state law.
City of Los Angeles
On February 10, 2026, the City of Los Angeles established Executive Directive No. 17, a comprehensive framework to limit federal civil immigration enforcement activities on City property and reinforce protections for residents accessing City services (Attachment C - City of Los Angeles Executive Order No. 17).
Key provisions include:
• Prohibits the use of City-owned or controlled property as a staging area, processing location, or operations base for federal immigration enforcement
• Requires all City departments to identify vulnerable properties and post signage explicitly prohibiting immigration enforcement use
• Directs the use of physical access controls (e.g., gates, locked facilities) to restrict entry to non-public areas of City property
• Maintains that non-public areas of City facilities are off-limits to federal immigration agents without a judicial warrant or court order
• Prohibits the use of City resources to support federal immigration enforcement, consistent with prior City directives
• Establishes reporting requirements for City staff and contractors to notify designated officials of any attempted or actual immigration enforcement activity on City property
• Directs enhanced transparency and documentation of federal immigration enforcement activity, including body-worn camera usage and incident reporting by law enforcement personnel
Los Angeles’ approach reflects a detailed operational and administrative framework that goes beyond general policy statements by requiring specific departmental actions, physical site controls, public signage, and ongoing monitoring. The directive is intended to safeguard City property, reinforce legal boundaries between local and federal authority, and ensure residents can safely access City services without fear of immigration enforcement activity.
City of Sacramento
On April 28, 2026, the City of Sacramento passed a resolution to restrict federal immigration enforcement on city-owned property, aiming to protect immigrant communities. This measure directs the city manager to create a policy banning ICE activity on city property, with a report-back deadline of June 23, 2026.
Key provisions include:
• Prohibits the use of City-owned property for civil immigration-related enforcement by federal agencies.
• Directs the City Manager to create a program providing free signs for private property owners to prohibit immigration enforcement on their land.
• The City Manager is required to return by June 23, 2026, with a comprehensive policy plan and timeline.
• This follows a January 2026 update to the city's immigration platform, which reaffirmed Sacramento as a city of refuge, restricted the use of city data for immigration enforcement, and defended free speech.
• It is a resolution, not a binding ordinance, which allows for greater flexibility for the City Manager.
Key Considerations
Federal agencies retain full authority to conduct immigration enforcement. The City cannot prohibit lawful federal enforcement actions. However, the City may regulate the use of its own property and resources. Policies typically do not interfere with enforcement actions and instead focus on restricting access to City-controlled facilities
Policy Scope Considerations
If the City elects to pursue a policy, some considerations may include:
Facility Coverage
• City-owned buildings
• Community centers and libraries
• Parks and recreational facilities
• Parking lots and garages
Operational Components
• Posting of signage at facilities
• Development of staff protocols and training
• Establishment of reporting procedures
Exceptions
• Activities required by law
• Facilities under federal control or lease agreements
• Public rights-of-way where restrictions may be limited
Community Considerations
Cities adopting similar policies have identified the following potential outcomes:
Potential Benefits
• Increased utilization of City services and facilities
• Strengthened trust between residents and local government
• Alignment with State of California policy direction
Considerations
• Public perception and community engagement
• Coordination with law enforcement partners
• Clarity in implementation and communication
FINANCIAL SUMMARY
There is no immediate fiscal impact associated with receiving this report.
If the City Council directs staff to develop and implement a policy, minor costs may be incurred for facility signage, staff training, and administrative coordination.
Attachment A - City of San Jose Resolution RES2026-5
Attachment B - City of Pasadena Resolution 9557
Attachment C - City of Los Angeles Executive Order No. 17