Nila Kartika Wati
The landscape of American governance is currently undergoing a significant shift as state legislatures increasingly emerge as the primary defenders of constitutional due process and community safety. As federal agencies, including Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), intensify enforcement actions across the United States, a growing coalition of state lawmakers is utilizing a framework known as "co-governance" to shield residents from what they characterize as authoritarian overreach. This movement, spearheaded by organizations such as the State Innovation Exchange (SiX), represents a strategic pivot toward localizing the defense of civil liberties and re-establishing the role of the state as a bulwark against federal escalation.
At the heart of this legislative surge is the concept of co-governance—a model of public administration where community members, advocates, and elected officials share information and decision-making power. Unlike traditional top-down governance, co-governance seeks to integrate lived experience directly into the legislative process, ensuring that policy is not merely imposed upon a population but developed in tandem with those most affected by it. In states like Minnesota, this model is being tested in real-time as local leaders and community organizers respond to increased federal surveillance and enforcement operations that many legal experts argue circumvent traditional judicial oversight.
The Evolution of State-Level Resistance: A Chronology of Action
The current wave of state-level intervention did not emerge in a vacuum. It is the result of nearly a decade of incremental legislative building aimed at decoupling local resources from federal immigration mandates.
The timeline of this movement shows a clear trajectory of escalation in response to federal shifts:
- 2017–2019: Establishing the Foundation. States such as Illinois and Washington began passing foundational "sanctuary" or "trust" acts. The Washington "Keep Washington Working Act" (2019) became a landmark piece of legislation, prohibiting local law enforcement from asking about immigration status or sharing non-public information with federal agents unless required by law.
- 2021: Expanding Legal Protections. Illinois strengthened its stance with the TRUST Act of 2021, which further limited local police participation in federal immigration enforcement and prohibited the state from entering into new contracts for immigration detention.
- 2023–2024: Addressing Detention and Surveillance. Colorado enacted HB23-1100, which restricted government involvement in immigration detention, while other states began focusing on the digital footprint of residents, passing data privacy laws that prevented state agencies from handing over personal identifying information (PII) to federal databases.
- 2025–2026: The Current Era of Accountability. The legislative focus has shifted toward direct accountability for federal agents. States like New York, California, and Oregon have introduced or enacted laws allowing residents to sue federal agents for civil rights violations, effectively creating a state-level mechanism for redress where federal "Bivens" claims have historically been limited.
Legislative Pillars: How States Are Protecting Due Process
State lawmakers are currently advancing a multi-pronged strategy to restrain federal enforcement tactics that they deem disruptive to public order and safety. These strategies are categorized into five primary legislative pillars.
1. Transparency and Officer Identification
A significant concern for civil rights advocates is the use of unidentified federal agents during enforcement operations. To combat this, several states have introduced legislation requiring all law enforcement officers operating within their jurisdictions to clearly display their identity and agency affiliation. California’s SB 627, Florida’s SB 316, and Missouri’s HB 2520 are representative of this trend. These policies are designed to prevent the "disappearing" of individuals into the federal system without a clear record of which agency conducted the arrest, thereby preserving the ability of legal counsel to intervene.
2. Safeguarding Sensitive Locations
The fear of immigration enforcement can lead to a "chilling effect," where residents avoid essential services such as healthcare, education, and the judicial system. To mitigate this, states are establishing "sensitive location" protections. Arizona (SB 1362/HB 2807), Colorado (SB 25-276), and Michigan (SB 508-510) are currently advancing policies that restrict ICE and CBP presence in schools, health facilities, places of worship, and courthouses. By codifying these restrictions into state law, legislators aim to ensure that public institutions remain accessible to all residents regardless of their immigration status.
3. Decoupling Local and Federal Enforcement
The most common form of state intervention remains the restriction of local law enforcement’s collaboration with federal agencies. This includes prohibiting "detainer" requests, where ICE asks local jails to hold individuals beyond their release date. Colorado’s HB 23-1100 and Illinois’ TRUST Act serve as primary examples of how states can legally separate local policing from federal civil immigration matters, a move that advocates argue improves public safety by fostering trust between immigrant communities and local police.
4. Data Privacy and Information Security
In an era of digital surveillance, the protection of personal data has become a frontline issue. Wisconsin and Colorado have implemented policies that prevent state agencies—such as Department of Motor Vehicles or social service offices—from sharing personal identifying information with federal immigration authorities without a judicial warrant. These safeguards are critical in preventing federal agencies from using state-maintained databases to conduct mass enforcement actions.
5. Civil Liability for Federal Agents
Perhaps the most aggressive legislative tool currently in use is the creation of state-level causes of action for civil rights violations. Traditionally, federal agents have enjoyed broad immunity under federal law. However, a new wave of legislation in states like Oregon and New York seeks to empower residents to sue federal agents in state court for violations of constitutional rights, such as illegal search and seizure. While the legal landscape for these laws remains complex and subject to federal challenge, they represent a significant attempt to create a deterrent against abusive enforcement practices.
Economic Pressure and Corporate Accountability: The Avelo Case Study
A unique aspect of the current state-level strategy involves the use of economic levers to influence federal policy. Legislators are increasingly looking at private entities that facilitate federal immigration enforcement. A prominent example occurred in Delaware with the introduction of SB 207.
The bill sought to strip financial incentives from Avelo Airlines unless the company ceased conducting deportation flights for the federal government. On January 7, 2026, Avelo Airlines announced it would end these flights, citing the changing regulatory and legislative environment. This victory for state-level advocates demonstrates that state power is not limited to law enforcement regulations but also extends to the state’s role as a market participant and economic regulator. By targeting the private infrastructure of the federal enforcement machine, states can exert significant pressure that federal agencies may find difficult to bypass.
Official Responses and Political Implications
The reaction to these state-level initiatives has been polarized. Federal officials often argue that such laws interfere with national security and the executive branch’s constitutional authority to manage borders and immigration. Critics of the "co-governance" model suggest that it creates a "patchwork" of laws that makes federal enforcement inconsistent and difficult to manage.
Conversely, state lawmakers argue that the Tenth Amendment grants states the power to protect the health and safety of their residents. They contend that when federal actions threaten the stability of local communities, the state has a duty to intervene. Organizations like SiX, which supports over 1,800 lawmakers, emphasize that these policies are not merely ideological but are based on the measurable necessity of maintaining public trust in state institutions.
Legal experts suggest that the tension between state protections and federal enforcement will likely result in a series of Supreme Court challenges. The outcome of these cases will define the boundaries of federalism for the next generation, determining whether states have the right to provide higher standards of civil liberty protection than those offered by the federal government.
The Role of the Nonprofit and Philanthropic Sectors
The success of the co-governance model depends heavily on the infrastructure provided by the nonprofit sector. Advocacy groups and legal experts provide the research and drafting expertise necessary to ensure state laws can withstand judicial scrutiny. Furthermore, community organizations serve as the bridge between legislators and the public, identifying emerging threats and documenting the impact of federal enforcement actions.
Philanthropic support is increasingly being directed toward these state-level efforts. Funding is being used to convene stakeholders in high-distrust environments, support legal defense funds, and build the communicative capacity of state legislators who are often operating with limited staff and resources. The argument from the nonprofit sector is clear: if democracy is to survive a period of federal instability, the local and state structures that support it must be fortified.
Analysis of Broader Impacts
The shift toward state-level co-governance reflects a deeper transformation in American political life. It suggests that in a period of federal gridlock or perceived authoritarianism, the "laboratory of democracy"—the states—becomes a laboratory of resistance.
The implications of this movement extend beyond immigration. The frameworks being built today to protect immigrant communities are the same frameworks that can be used to protect reproductive rights, voting access, and environmental standards. By establishing the legal and procedural infrastructure for co-governance, states are creating a template for how local government can function as a proactive defender of human rights.
Furthermore, the emphasis on co-governance challenges the traditional "force-based" model of governance. By prioritizing relationship-building and community input, state leaders are attempting to prove that effective governance is rooted in consent and accountability rather than mere enforcement. This approach seeks to counteract the isolation and fear that often accompany aggressive federal policing, replacing it with a sense of collective responsibility and mutual protection.
As the situation in Minneapolis and other major cities continues to evolve, the country is watching a real-time experiment in modern federalism. The ability of state lawmakers to successfully navigate the legal and political challenges posed by federal escalation will determine the future of civil liberties in the United States. For now, the message from the states is clear: when the federal government retreats from its duty to protect the rights of all residents, the states will step in to fill the void, using every legislative, economic, and community-based tool at their disposal.
