Enforcement Actions State Compliance Enforcement Practices Enforcement Local Ordinances Local Enforcement Enforcement Agencies Enforcement Tactics Judicial Decisions Detention Practices Law Enforcement Court Decisions Healthcare Regulations Legal Consequences Compliance Documentation Requirements Legal Challenges State Legislation ICE Operations Enforcement Policies Sanctuary Policies Funding Policies Compliance Issues Local Compliance State Regulations Social Security Administration Military Protocols Judicial Orders Sanctuary Jurisdictions Search Warrants Detention Centers Executive Authority Local Authority Agent Identification Court Cases Public Education Law Education Regulations Legal Status Identification Local Law Enforcement Healthcare Law Environmental Law Homeland Security State Response Census Regulations Child Immigration Consent Decrees Military Authority Detainee Rights Community Initiatives Airport Security Travel Bans Incentives for Departure Civil Liberties Law Enforcement Tactics Legal Protocols University Compliance Local Zoning Laws State Law Judicial Oversight DHS Guidelines Student Visas Department of Homeland Security 287(g) Agreements Sanctuary Cities 287(g) Program Detention of Immigrants State Authority Player Rights Nonprofits Non-Governmental Organizations Funding Restrictions Border Enforcement Housing Regulations Legal Action Registration Requirements Noncitizen Requirements Military Involvement Emergency Declarations
Federal and city officials warn the privately installed devices could bring legal penalties, testing the limits of local resistance to immigration raids.
