Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Sanctuary Policy Ice topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

City attorneys and police outline sanctuary limits; land-use counsel says McAdam ICE facility permit cannot be unilaterally rescinded

5070798 · June 25, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

City attorneys, police and councilors on June 24 reviewed Portland's sanctuary laws, recent litigation and the city's limited authority to revoke the conditional use permit for the McAdam ICE facility.

City attorneys, police and councilors on June 24 reviewed Portland's sanctuary laws, recent litigation and the city's limited authority to revoke the conditional use permit for the McAdam ICE facility.

Heidi Brown, chief deputy city attorney, told the committee that Oregon has had sanctuary protections since 1987 that generally prohibit state and local government entities from using personnel, equipment or funds to detect or arrest people for federal civil immigration enforcement. Brown said exceptions include arrests based on criminal warrants issued by a federal judge; she also said public bodies cannot deny services or ask about immigration status except in limited, legally specified circumstances. Brown described two lawsuits the city joined seeking to block federal actions that would condition federal grants on cooperation with immigration enforcement; she said preliminary injunctions obtained in those cases have so far prevented federal agencies from withholding certain grant funds on sanctuary grounds.

Chief Deputy City Attorney Brown and Chief Bob Day said the city's 2017 sanctuary resolution directs the Portland Police Bureau to ensure bureau directive language limits cooperation with civil immigration enforcement. Chief Day said PPB's written directive instructs officers not to interrogate, detain, arrest or take official police action solely on the basis of a person's immigration status or protected characteristics, and that the bureau will follow state statute and city ordinance when federal civil immigration enforcement is involved. He said PPB's contacts with federal partners are primarily with the Federal Protective Service, which provides security for federal facilities, and that the bureau's role is focused on criminal conduct rather than civil immigration enforcement.

Committee members asked for clarity about what "cooperate" means in practice; Brown and Day emphasized that routine communication (for example, criminal investigative exchange) differs from active assistance in civil immigration enforcement and that the city must follow applicable state and federal law. Brown said public bodies may provide information required by subpoena or information that is otherwise publicly available, but not otherwise share custody information for civil immigration enforcement purposes.

Robert Taylor, a city land use attorney, told the committee that the McAdam facility was approved through a conditional use review by council in 2011 with specific conditions (approved safety and custody-release plans, perimeter requirements) and that neither Oregon law nor Portland zoning code allows the city to unilaterally rescind a final conditional-use decision absent a showing that the use has substantially changed or increased beyond what was approved. He said the 2011 decision was final and not appealed, and that revocation would require legal standards that were not satisfied simply because the facility has generated protests.

Chief Day and councilors discussed operational matters including PPB's limited role in federal immigration enforcement, situations where criminal conduct by any actor (including federal agents) could give rise to local law enforcement action, and the need to balance public-safety resource allocation across the city. Councilors raised concerns about closure of public rights-of-way near the facility and potential impacts to medics and mutual-aid tents serving protesters; Chief Day said some surrounding properties are state or privately owned and that Portland Police had sought to limit footprint and de-escalate while remaining responsive to criminal conduct.

No legislative action was taken in committee; members discussed scheduling additional sessions and legal follow-up to clarify directive language, enforcement data and land-use parameters.

Ending Committee members asked staff for follow-up legal advice and promised continued public meetings to hear community input on sanctuary policy and related operational impacts.