Saint Paul council appoints special counsel to join multi-city suit defending local immigration ordinance

The Saint Paul City Council voted 6 in favor and 1 opposed on Feb. 26 to appoint the Public Rights Project as special counsel to join litigation brought by the City of San Francisco and other municipalities challenging federal actions that the cities say threaten local "separation" ordinances.

The vote authorizes outside counsel to represent Saint Paul in the matter titled in part City and County of San Francisco et al. v. Donald J. Trump, President of the United States. The motion was made under suspension of the rules and carried by roll call: 6 in favor, no 1 opposed.

Why it matters: Councilmembers and the mayor—s office framed the item as an effort to protect a local ordinance passed in 2004 that directs city departments and police not to carry out federal immigration-enforcement tasks. Councilmember Jost explained that the ordinance was originally intended to remove a chilling effect that kept crime victims from contacting police because of immigration concerns. "Our city departments and our police departments do not operate to carry out the work or actions of ICE agents or to enforce federal immigration laws," Jost said during discussion.

Council discussion and context: Members across the council supported the decision, saying it would preserve trust between immigrant communities and city services and would not forfeit federal funding. Councilmember Johnson said the measure preserves local priorities and access to services for "community members regardless of their immigration status." Vice President Kim, who moved the suspension and vote, framed the action as both a legal and moral stand, saying that providing resources and legal information to immigrants "makes us all safer."

Scope and limitations: The council resolution authorizes the city to join the multi-jurisdiction litigation and to retain the named outside counsel. The vote did not adopt any new local policy changes; it authorizes legal representation in ongoing federal litigation. The resolution text (read into the record) lists the cities and counties joining the suit but does not change the text of the 2004 ordinance.

What the record shows: The transcript of the meeting records a press conference earlier the same day and substantive remarks by several councilmembers outlining the ordinance—s origin, intent and community impacts. The vote on the appointment was recorded as 6 in favor, no 1 opposed.