Residents urge Huntington council to adopt transparency rules for ICE interactions

Dozens of residents told the Huntington City Council on June 23 that they are afraid of immigration-enforcement actions in the city and urged the council to adopt a formal resolution requiring transparency and constitutional protections in local interactions with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

The petition, read into the record by Councilmember Rumbaugh at the request of residents, asks the city to publish any memoranda of understanding or other agreements with federal immigration agencies before implementation and to prohibit city employees, including members of the Huntington Police Department, from assisting enforcement actions when federal agents refuse to clearly identify themselves.

The petition frames the requested policy around constitutional protections. It cites the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and warns of civil-liability risks under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for local participation in unlawful detentions. The petition also asks for training and policy updates for local officers on the constitutional limits of civil immigration enforcement.

Multiple members of the public described incidents and fears in Huntington. Resident Shannon Butler said she was concerned by reports of people being detained and by agents who allegedly covered their faces and used unmarked vehicles. "I hope that the city of Huntington will not pre‑comply with any data sharing with the federal government with ICE," Butler told the council. Diana Minthouse and others described fear that legal residents and family members could be detained without clear identification or adequate procedural safeguards.

Speakers described chilling effects on community life: workers skipping shifts, congregants avoiding religious services and parents worried about family members. Several speakers urged the council to take steps to protect due process and public trust.

Councilmembers heard the petition and comments during the public-comment portion of the meeting. Councilmember Rumbaugh read the petition aloud after the council agreed to waive a time limit so the full text could be placed in the record. The petition requests several specific provisions: public disclosure of federal collaboration, prohibition on assistance when agents refuse identification, reaffirmation of constitutional protections, and training for law enforcement.

Council members responded in general terms during later remarks, expressing support for residents' dignity and due process. Councilmember Lehman and others praised residents for speaking and emphasized the community's obligation to treat people with respect. The record does not show the council adopting any policy at the June 23 meeting; the petition was submitted for council consideration.

The council did not vote on a citywide resolution at the meeting. The petition asked the council to act "swiftly" to adopt policies, but no formal motion to draft or adopt a resolution appears in the meeting transcript.