A wave of Democratic-led states is moving to redraw the lines of accountability for federal immigration enforcement, advancing proposals that would let people bring civil rights lawsuits against ICE officers in state courts. The momentum has sharpened after deadly encounters and heated protests tied to immigration operations in Minneapolis and other cities.
Illinois has already stepped out front. Lawmakers there approved a measure that opens the door for state-court claims against federal immigration officers accused of knowingly violating constitutional rights while carrying out their duties. The federal government responded almost immediately, asking a court to block the law on the grounds that states cannot regulate federal officers — a dispute that now looms as a broader constitutional fight.
Elsewhere, similar bills are taking shape in California, New York, Virginia, Maryland and Connecticut. Supporters argue the proposals are a response to what they see as an enforcement gap: while state and local officers can be sued personally for rights violations, federal agents generally cannot be named as individual defendants under existing federal statutes.
Recent events have poured fuel on the debate. The fatal shootings of two people — Renee Good and Alex Pretti — during ICE operations in Minneapolis, along with aggressive crowd-control tactics during subsequent protests, have intensified calls for new checks on federal power at the street level.
New York’s governor has publicly backed the idea, saying the state should allow residents to seek redress when federal officers act beyond their authority. Federal officials counter that such rhetoric unfairly targets officers tasked with enforcing immigration law, insisting they operate within constitutional bounds and under strict rules of engagement.
At the heart of the push is a long-standing imbalance in U.S. civil rights law. Since the 19th century, people have been able to sue state and local officials for constitutional violations. No equivalent pathway exists for suing individual federal officers. Claims against the federal government itself are possible, but critics describe that route as slow, complex and limited in scope.
Illinois’ statute tries to close that gap by creating state-level liability for federal immigration officers. Plaintiffs who say they were unlawfully searched or detained could seek compensation, including punitive damages. That last point, however, is already under fire, with some constitutional scholars warning it may collide with the principle that federal law overrides conflicting state rules.
Still, backers say the core idea is sound: states are not rewriting federal duties, they argue, but providing remedies when constitutional lines are crossed. Whether courts agree remains to be seen.
California’s proposal — dubbed the “No Kings Act” — is framed to mirror long-established civil rights law, a design choice supporters believe could make it more resilient to legal challenges. The bill has cleared an early committee hurdle but still faces multiple votes before it could become law.
If Illinois’ statute survives its initial court test, the fight is widely expected to climb the judicial ladder, potentially landing before the U.S. Supreme Court. Until then, the clash sets up a high-stakes question: how far can states go in holding federal officers personally accountable — and who ultimately decides where that boundary lies?
