Cambridge committee advances ordinance to limit police assistance to ICE, requires command staff verification

The Cambridge City Council Ordinance Committee voted Monday to send amended language to the full City Council that clarifies the Cambridge Police Department’s role during federal immigration-enforcement actions and directs department command staff to take reasonable steps to verify and document federal agents on scene.

The change, based on a city solicitor draft dated July 20, 2025, removes language that commenters said could be read to allow police to assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with crowd control and directs that the CPD’s role is limited to ensuring public safety rather than conducting federal immigration enforcement.

City Solicitor's Office staff told the committee the amendment accomplishes three tasks: it clarifies that CPD should not perform immigration-enforcement functions, it requires verification that individuals on scene are federal agents, and it requires documentation of activity on scene. The solicitor explained the draft uses command staff — rather than first-responding patrol officers — as the principal point of contact with federal offices to limit legal and safety risks for patrol personnel. As the solicitor said, there was concern that "if the patrol officers... have to ask a federal agent to identify themselves... they could be in a position of being accused of obstructing the immigration enforcement activity" under federal law.

Public commenters, advocacy groups and volunteers urged the committee to adopt the stronger language. "It is entirely inappropriate for our local police to assist immigration enforcement operations," said Julia Schlossman, who identified herself as a Cambridge resident. Joe Adaleta, another resident, said, "The police are on the wrong side," arguing the council should take a stronger stance. John Faria, a volunteer with a local hotline that documents suspected ICE activity, urged the police to participate in verification: "I was ecstatic when I heard that Cambridge police may be joining us in this verifying activity." Alex Matthews of Digital Force said the council could legally require officers to ask for badge numbers and names and cited court precedent, stating, "It is legal for Cambridge City Council to require Cambridge PD to ask the the people purporting to be ICE agents for their name and badge numbers."

Advocacy groups spoke in support of the amendments. A representative of Protecting Our Democracy said the changes "ensure Cambridge police will act autonomously of ICE agents to ensure public safety for all on scene." ACLU of Massachusetts counsel spoke in favor as well, thanking the police and city solicitor for their work on revised language.

Committee members debated whether the ordinance should name "command staff" explicitly or leave that allocation of duties to the police department’s internal procedures. Supporters of naming command staff said it reduces the chance that patrol officers will be put in a position that could expose them to civil or criminal liability under federal statutes; some councilors said the council could consider further edits before the final vote. Councilor Nolan, the mover of the amendment, said she would not propose additional amendments because she believed they could put officers and the community at risk.

The committee approved three procedural steps related to the item: a motion to close public comment, a motion to bring the amended language forward for committee discussion, and a motion to move the amended language to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation. All three motions passed on roll call votes recorded as 6 in favor and 3 members absent. The committee recorded the vote counts but did not list a formal roll-call tally by individual in the final motion text beyond the roll calls held on the record.

The ordinance will return to the full City Council for final consideration on the date posted to the council’s agenda (the committee record notes a final vote expected Monday). Supporters, opponents and city staff said they expect the ordinance language to remain under public scrutiny and subject to further technical edits as the City Council prepares a final ordainment.

Votes at a glance: On a motion by Councilor Nolan, the committee moved the amended language forward to the full City Council with a favorable recommendation (recorded as approved, 6 yes, 3 absent). A separate procedural motion to close public comment also passed by the same recorded margin.