Policy Committee Meeting on Separation Ordinance and Immigration Enforcement - January 14, 2026

The St. Paul City Council Policy Committee met on January 14, 2026, at 16:00 UTC to discuss the city's separation ordinance, the ongoing federal immigration enforcement actions, and potential municipal responses. The meeting featured three presentations: the ACLU of Minnesota on policy options, the Chief Policy Officer on a framework for amending the separation ordinance, and the City Attorney's Office on the current ordinance and staff training. Council members expressed urgency and differing views on process, with an existing draft separation ordinance awaiting legal review and a first reading.

ACLU of Minnesota Presentation

• John Baylor, Policy Counsel for the ACLU of Minnesota, presented on legal actions and recommended municipal policies. He noted the ACLU has filed lawsuits including Tincher v. NOME (December 2025, hearing on Jan. 13 seeking preliminary injunction), Suarez Varela v. Carver County (upcoming trial), and Corey Grunos v. Freeborn County (challenging a 287(g) agreement). He thanked St. Paul for joining the state and Minneapolis in a lawsuit filed earlier that week.
• Proposed city-level actions:
  • Ban law enforcement use of masks and require visible agency identification (similar to Los Angeles County and California).
  • Require a warrant for law enforcement entry into city-funded facilities (hospitals, schools, libraries, parks, etc.), with exceptions for emergencies or limiting to immigration enforcement.
  • Ban city participation in joint terrorism/homeland security task forces and limit acquisition of military equipment via 1033/1122 programs.
  • Establish a hotline or online portal for residents to document constitutional abuses by federal government, for future public reckoning.
  • Restrict automatic license plate reader (ALPR) data to St. Paul city/police servers, not third-party cloud storage, to control access and queries.
• Council questions: Councilmember Coleman asked about formality of data sharing with ICE; Baylor explained third-party contracts often allow queries by other agencies. Councilmember Jost asked how reports from a hotline would be used; Baylor said they could inform future lawsuits or human rights reports. Councilmember Kim requested sample language; Baylor said they have language on most items except ALPRs. Councilmember Bowie asked about successful litigation examples; Baylor cited Chicago's actions limiting ICE and a West Coast state blocking National Guard deployment.

Separation Ordinance Framework by Chief Policy Officer Greenfield

• Greenfield outlined a framework for potential amendments to Chapter 44 of the Administrative Code (the separation ordinance, enacted in 2004). He identified three areas for council consideration:
  1. Clarifying the relationship between city employees and federal immigration enforcement, addressing how the existing ordinance falls short.
  2. Prohibiting certain conduct by federal agents or city departments (e.g., masking ban, equipment procurement restrictions) – possibly via legislative code rather than administrative code.
  3. Emergency measures (raised by Councilmember Bowie) such as emergency declarations or support for businesses.
• Council discussion: Councilmember Coleman noted evolving community desires for police to protect residents from ICE actions. Councilmember Bowie criticized lack of action from department heads and called for understanding the mayor's executive powers. Council President Acre analogized legislative speed to a "250-year-old truck." Councilmember Jost emphasized need to clarify council vs. mayor powers. Vice President Kim asked about political will to protect residents. Councilmember Yang later stated a draft ordinance exists and is being circulated; she wants first reading as soon as possible, not another policy committee meeting.

Current Separation Ordinance Training by City Attorney Edmund DeLeo

• DeLeo presented on the current ordinance and training for city employees. The ordinance says city employees do not enforce federal immigration policy with limited exceptions, and never ask for immigration documentation/status in exchange for services. Authority is grounded in the Tenth Amendment and the 287(g) agreement requirement.
• Exceptions where immigration status may be inquired: employment I-9 verification, public benefits (federal law), police for crimes with immigration elements (e.g., unauthorized immigrant possessing a firearm), fire department for ambulance service reimbursement, and city attorney's office for immigration consequences of guilty pleas (Padilla v. Kentucky).
• Training protocols: Employees are instructed to not consent to entry into private spaces (e.g., employee-only areas) without a judicial warrant; they should ask federal agents to wait for a supervisor and contact the city attorney's office. Public spaces (lobbies, open areas) are accessible to agents. Employees should not physically stop agents; legal challenges will be pursued later. DeLeo showed examples of judicial vs. administrative warrants.
• Council questions: Councilmember Jost asked about public vs. private spaces; DeLeo said signage identifies private spaces. Council President Acre asked about law enforcement cooperation with ICE under the current ordinance; DeLeo declined to comment due to pending litigation. Vice President Kim raised concerns about agents not following laws and asked what support the city will provide employees who act on moral compass; DeLeo acknowledged complexity and referenced the lawsuit filed that week. Councilmember Yang stressed urgency for a meeting with the mayor and police chief to clarify what police can do (e.g., responding to suspicious vehicles).

Key Outcomes

• Separation Ordinance Amendment: A draft ordinance strengthening Chapter 44 exists and is being reviewed by the city attorney's office, mayor's office, and departments. No date has been set for first reading, but council members (especially Yang and Coleman) are pushing for it to come to a council meeting as soon as possible, not back to policy committee.
• Other Potential Ordinances: Councilmember Bowie (Public Safety Committee chair) indicated her committee will consider proposals like limiting military gear purchases, hotline establishment, and ALPR data restrictions. Council President Acre invited any member to introduce ordinances.
• Next Steps: Council will continue internal and administration conversations. The city attorney's office continues training city employees. The ACLU will share sample policy language. The council did not take any votes during this policy committee session.