CC WS PACKET 02042026 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

2 4936-0413-5952\4 Analysis Intergovernmental immunity prohibits States from discriminating against the Federal Government. United States v. Washington, 142 S. Ct. 1976, 1984, 213 L. Ed. 2d 336 (2022). Under that doctrine, the U.S. Supreme Court has stated that states may not regulate the federal government directly or burdening the Federal Government more than other actors. North Dakota v. United States, 495 U.S. 423, 434, 110 S. Ct. 1986, 1994 (1990). St. Anthony will not offend principles of intergovernmental immunity if its proposed ordinance is neutrally drafted and does not discriminate against the federal government. Federal courts routinely uphold such neutral ordinances and statutes. See, e.g., United States v. New Jersey, Civil Action No. 20-1364 (FLW) (TJB), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14089, at *36 (D.N.J. Jan. 26, 2021) (concluding that a state law did not offend inter-governmental immunity because it did not single out the federal government). Here, St. Anthony may likely enact an ordinance generally prohibiting officials enforcing immigration laws from staging in public parks, provided that the ordinance does not single out federal or ICE officers. Other municipalities in Minnesota have enacted or are considering such provisions. Mayor Jacob Frey, for instance, has already issued an executive order prohibiting ICE from using parks and public spaces as staging areas, and St. Paul appears to be considering a similar ordinance. St. Anthony’s eventual ordinance may not, however, target ICE or federal officers directly, or it will likely constitute an invalid contravention of intergovernmental immunity. CoreCivic, Inc. v. Governor of N.J., 145 F.4th 315, 319 (3d Cir. 2025) (concluding that a New Jersey statute violated intergovernmental immunity because it directly regulated the federal government by banning contracts that only the federal government could make). Question: May St. Anthony require ICE to notify the city of their presence in parks? Answer: St. Anthony may likely not require ICE to inform the City if they intend to operate in the city Analysis: Federal law is clear that if St. Anthony’s eventual ordinance discriminates against or directly regulates ICE or federal officers, it will violate intergovernmental immunity. CoreCivic, Inc. v. Governor of N.J., 145 F.4th 315, 319 (3d Cir. 2025) (concluding that a New Jersey statute violated intergovernmental immunity because it directly regulated the federal government by banning contracts that only the federal government could make). Requiring ICE agents specifically to wear face masks would offend this principle. Question: May St. Anthony require law enforcement to wear body cameras and prohibit face masks? Answer: St. Anthony may likely prohibit face masks and require body cameras for all law enforcement generally, but this proposed ordinance could be on weaker legal footing.