Durham’s City Council moved in lockstep this week to erect fresh guardrails around immigration enforcement at city facilities, adopting a resolution that tells municipal workers to uphold Fourth Amendment standards at work, beef up training on warrants, and report back on any roadblocks to implementation. In practice, it means city staff are instructed not to cooperate with immigration arrests at city sites unless federal agents present a judge-signed warrant—not merely an administrative ICE detainer or request.

The vote follows a July incident at the Durham County Courthouse, where four plainclothes ICE officers appeared seeking to detain an undocumented defendant on felony charges. No arrests were made, but the sight of federal agents prompted a rapid protest outside the courthouse and a same-day march, galvanizing immigrant-advocacy groups and local officials.

“Our residents witnessed ICE agents in our community, instilling widespread fear and uncertainty,” Mayor Leo Williams said afterward, arguing that while City Hall can’t stop federal operations, it can decide how its own workforce engages. “We can and must stand in strategic solidarity with our neighbors,” he added.

Council member Javiera Caballero introduced the measure, with organizing help from Siembra NC, a statewide group that supports Latino workers. During public comment, speakers described kids skipping school and families avoiding basic errands out of fear of encountering immigration officers. One resident said she’s watched “too many children” lose sleep because they’re worried a parent won’t be home after work.

The text of the resolution does three main things:

• Codifies warrant standards at city workplaces. Employees are directed to differentiate between judicial warrants (signed by a judge, required for arrests in non-public areas or for access to protected records) and administrative papers (often used by ICE but not sufficient, standing alone, to compel cooperation from city staff on city property).
• Mandates training. Departments must ensure frontline workers know how to respond if federal agents appear at a city building, school-adjacent facility, or worksite, including how to route agents to legal counsel or supervisors.
• Requires follow-up. The manager’s office must report back to Council on any “barriers” to putting the policy into practice, setting up potential tweaks in coming months.

Supporters frame the move as constitutional housekeeping, not civil disobedience—an effort to keep city employees from accidentally waiving residents’ rights or granting access that, by law, requires a judge’s sign-off. They also note that the policy doesn’t stop ICE from making arrests in public spaces, nor does it order employees to obstruct federal agents.

Critics, however, see a sanctuary-style end run that will chill cooperation with legitimate criminal enforcement and complicate the removal of violent offenders. Earlier this year, the Department of Homeland Security labeled Durham a “sanctuary county” for allegedly declining to collaborate with immigration authorities—an assessment county officials rejected as baseless. The new city policy is certain to revive that fight, even as it’s tailored to the narrower question of when staff may lawfully assist without a court order.

The timing is combustible. The Trump administration has shifted sharply from border interdiction to interior enforcement, ramping up multi-jurisdiction operations and expanding detention capacity. ICE has warned for years that courthouse and workplace encounters increase when local jails and governments decline cooperation—something the agency argues puts bystanders and officers at greater risk. Durham’s resolution, while couched in Fourth Amendment language, positions the city on the opposite side of that debate, insisting that rights compliance must come first and that federal agencies carry the burden of obtaining proper warrants.

Legally, the policy occupies a well-lit but narrow lane. Cities cannot nullify federal law or physically block federal officers; they can, however, set rules for their own employees and facilities, decline voluntary assistance, and require judicial warrants before granting access to non-public areas or turning over protected information. Expect the resolution to be tested quickly—both on the ground, if agents seek someone at a city site, and politically, as state and federal officials decide whether to pressure Durham to reverse course.

For now, Durham joins Carrboro in formalizing a playbook many progressive municipalities have quietly followed for years: train staff, demand judge-signed warrants, and keep city workers out of the middle of immigration arrests unless the law clearly requires their help. Whether that approach calms community fears or sparks fresh confrontations will depend on what happens the next time ICE shows up at a city door.