Overview

Executive Orders Expanding ICE Enforcement Authority

What Changed and Why It Was Significant

The "sensitive locations" policy had been in place since October 2011, established during the Obama administration with the explicit goal of giving people access to essential services without fear of enforcement activities by ICE or Customs and Border Protection agents. Under that framework and reinforced under both Obama and Biden, ICE and CBP were generally restricted from conducting enforcement actions in or around protected areas without special approval, and arrests in those locations required high-level sign-off from supervisors and were considered only in very limited, serious circumstances. President Trump had kept the policy in place during his first term, although he revoked a similar guidance around courthouses.

Executive Order 14159 revoked several Biden administration executive orders related to immigration enforcement policies and priorities, stipulating that it is the policy of the United States to faithfully execute immigration laws against all inadmissible and removable aliens, particularly those who threaten public safety or national security. The order directed DHS officials to implement new civil enforcement priorities and to prioritize enforcing final orders of removal and immigration law provisions related to illegal entry and unlawful presence. The following day, Acting DHS Secretary Huffman issued a directive ending the Biden administration's policy restricting immigration enforcement in or near "protected areas," meaning ICE agents would have the authority to enter sensitive areas, including hospitals, schools, and churches, and take enforcement actions.

Huffman's memo formally rescinded the previous protected-areas guidance, with DHS stating that ICE agents are no longer constrained by geographical rules or special approval requirements in places that were formerly off-limits. On January 31, 2025, ICE issued a supplementary memo on protected areas that provided some minimal safeguards, specifying that ICE officials may authorize enforcement in formerly protected areas either verbally or in writing, but the memo did not explicitly require this authorization or establish clear standards.

Scope of the New Enforcement Framework

Under the prior system, sensitive locations included schools of all levels, medical and mental healthcare facilities, places of worship or religious study, places where children gather such as playgrounds and recreation centers, and social services establishments including domestic violence shelters and victim services centers. All of those protections were eliminated. Under the 2025 policy, ICE agents are not prohibited from conducting arrests at these locations, and although agents may still avoid such places in certain cases, they no longer face formal restrictions.

ICE also issued interim guidance on January 21, 2025, allowing civil immigration enforcement actions in or near courthouses under certain conditions. ICE has resumed making arrests in and around courthouses, including immigration court, civil court, and family court, raising concerns about access to justice and fear among witnesses and victims of crimes.

Significance and Impact

The practical effects of removing these restrictions emerged quickly and have compounded over time. For almost a decade and a half, U.S. immigration officers had steered clear of churches, complying with a directive by former President Obama that limited immigration enforcement at sensitive locations, including schools, hospitals, and places of worship. The policy reversal ended that norm in a single day. By mid-2025, incidents of enforcement at or near formerly protected sites were being documented and litigated across the country.

As ICE enforcement intensified in 2026, a record number of states enacted laws limiting or expanding their cooperation with federal immigration authorities, creating a growing patchwork of legal environments. Immigration-related state laws surged to 213 in 2025—the most since 2017—as Democratic-led states moved to limit ICE cooperation and Republican-led states pushed to expand it. On the cooperation side, the number of 287(g) agreements deputizing local officers to arrest noncitizens skyrocketed from 135 in January 2025 to 1,427 by February 2026, with Florida and Texas leading.

The administration and DHS argued the rollback restores discretion and prevents offenders from exploiting sensitive locations. Critics, however, documented chilling effects well beyond the individuals directly targeted by enforcement. Educators argued that schools and hospitals should remain off-limits absent immediate threats, and community groups noted that increased ICE presence in neighborhoods had indirect but profound effects on campuses, including drops in attendance and persistent fear.

Reactions and Debate

Opposition came from a broad coalition of institutions. Religious communities were among the first and most vocal critics. Catholic immigration advocates expressed alarm at the announcement. Faith-based organizations filed lawsuits across multiple jurisdictions, and cases were brought by Quaker meetings across 12 states and the District of Columbia, as well as coalitions of denominational and interdenominational religious entities, all challenging DHS's rescission of the sensitive locations memo.

School districts pursued parallel legal strategies. In February 2026, two Minnesota school districts and the state teachers' union filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, alleging that DHS violated the Administrative Procedure Act by abandoning decades of precedent without adequate explanation and without following required notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures. Several other lawsuits were also filed by Denver Public Schools and faith-based coalitions, arguing that the rollback violates the APA, constitutional rights to religious freedom and due process, and deters immigrants from accessing essential services.

State and local governments also began enacting legislation to protect sensitive locations and limit federal operations within their borders. New York Governor Kathy Hochul announced plans to propose legislation requiring federal immigration officials to obtain court-approved search warrants before conducting immigration arrests at sensitive locations, barring agents from entering schools, hospitals, and houses of worship without warrants. Five legislative themes emerged in states seeking to constrain ICE: mask and identification requirements for agents, judicial warrants for sensitive-location arrests, civil lawsuit rights, data-sharing prohibitions, and restrictions on detention facilities.

Some institutions obtained interim relief through the courts. Certain religious institutions and school districts obtained temporary injunctions from federal courts limiting ICE actions on their premises, and over 1,400 churches are protected under a federal injunction in Maryland. Public support for ICE operations also eroded over time, with 58 percent of adults opposing Trump's immigration policies as of late February 2026, a 10-point increase from the prior year.

Outlook

The legal landscape as of mid-2026 remains unsettled. Multiple lawsuits challenging the rescission are at various stages of litigation, and the administration has contested efforts to restore categorical protections through injunctive relief. The policy shift has led to increased immigration enforcement activity at or near schools nationwide, prompting ongoing legal challenges from school districts concerned about disruptions to their educational mission. Whether courts will ultimately require the administration to restore formal sensitive-location rules, or merely impose procedural constraints on how those rules are changed, remains an open question.

While ICE has provided limited data on its operations in 2025 and 2026, researchers found that from late January to mid-October 2025, 52 percent of ICE arrests took place at jails and prisons, and arrests occurred at lower rates in sanctuary states such as Illinois, New York, and Oregon than elsewhere. This suggests that even without formal protected-area rules, enforcement patterns vary considerably depending on local cooperation levels—a dynamic the administration's 287(g) expansion has sought to shift in its favor. The broader question of whether institutional protections for schools, hospitals, and houses of worship will be restored in some form—through litigation, legislation, or a future change in administration—remains open and is likely to remain a central fault line in immigration policy debates for years to come.