New Jersey Governor Limits State Cooperation With ICE, Prompting Federal Pushback

By Staff Writer
February 14, 2026

WASHINGTON — A new executive order signed this week by New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill has escalated tensions between state officials and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security over how federal immigration enforcement is conducted within the state.

Executive Order No. 12, signed three weeks into Ms. Sherrill’s first term, restricts the use of state-owned, state-leased or state-controlled property for civil immigration enforcement operations without a judicial warrant. The directive applies to nonpublic areas of government buildings, parking facilities, residential medical centers, child care facilities and state university dormitories.

The order does not bar federal immigration agents from operating in New Jersey. Instead, it limits their ability to use state infrastructure as staging or processing grounds for civil enforcement actions unless a judge has authorized access. “If federal authorities want to use state property, they must follow the same warrant requirements that apply to other law enforcement entities,” Ms. Sherrill said in a public statement.

The Department of Homeland Security, which oversees U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, criticized the order. A department spokesperson described it as legally flawed and argued that federal authority over immigration enforcement derives from constitutional provisions including the Supremacy Clause. The department also said policies limiting cooperation could undermine public safety.

The dispute comes amid heightened scrutiny of ICE operations nationwide. According to data obtained by CBS News, ICE made approximately 393,000 arrests between January 2025 and January 2026. Internal statistics reviewed by reporters indicate that a minority of those arrests involved individuals with violent criminal convictions, though federal officials say their enforcement priorities include public safety threats and individuals with final removal orders.

Independent analyses have added to the debate. The Cato Institute reported that a relatively small percentage of detainees booked into custody during the current fiscal year had violent criminal convictions, while a significant share had no prior criminal conviction. ICE officials have maintained that civil immigration violations remain lawful grounds for enforcement under federal statutes.

The controversy intensified following two fatal incidents in Minneapolis involving federal immigration agents. The circumstances surrounding those events remain under investigation. In Roxbury Township, N.J., ICE agents discharged firearms during an enforcement action earlier this week; no injuries were reported, and state authorities have opened a review.

In response to concerns about transparency, the New Jersey Attorney General’s office launched an online portal allowing residents to submit video recordings of ICE interactions for review. State officials say the portal is intended to collect information and ensure compliance with constitutional protections. DHS officials have warned that such measures could complicate enforcement operations and potentially endanger officers, citing a reported increase in assaults against federal agents.

Civil liberties advocates, including the ACLU of New Jersey, have endorsed the governor’s order, arguing that documenting law enforcement activity in public spaces is protected under the First Amendment. Federal courts have repeatedly affirmed the right to record police activity in public, subject to reasonable limitations.

The debate reflects broader national divisions over immigration policy under President Donald Trump, who campaigned on stricter border enforcement and interior removals. Administration officials say enhanced enforcement is necessary to deter unlawful immigration and uphold existing law. Critics contend that current practices risk sweeping in individuals without criminal histories and may erode trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement.

Other states have adopted similar transparency measures. New York and California have established reporting portals related to immigration enforcement activities, and several members of Congress are considering legislation that would create additional oversight mechanisms for ICE and Customs and Border Protection.

For now, New Jersey’s order stands as one of the most direct state-level challenges to federal immigration operations in recent months. Legal scholars say the issue is likely to hinge on the balance between federal supremacy in immigration matters and states’ authority to control access to their own property.

As investigations proceed and potential court challenges loom, the episode underscores the continuing friction between federal immigration enforcement and state governments seeking greater oversight and accountability.