Kane County board agrees to request legal review of proposed limits on ICE activity on county property

Dozens of residents urged the Kane County Board on Nov. 10 to block federal immigration agents from using county property as staging or processing sites, and the board voted to ask the state’s attorney to review a draft ordinance and related legal issues.

Supporters during the public-comment period described incidents they said amounted to reckless enforcement by ICE and Customs and Border Protection and urged immediate action. Jennifer Johnson, who identified herself as a South Elgin resident, told the board she had “followed reporting on ICE and the customs and border patrol activities in our county and neighboring counties” and urged the board to “move forward without delay on this request for draft ordinance.” Dan Tully, an attorney who works with Venezuelan migrants, urged the board to limit enforcement activity on county property and said neighboring counties had already taken similar steps.

Board members debated constitutionality, enforceability and litigation risk. Board member David Young argued that federal immigration statutes and the supremacy clause constrain local action, saying portions of the U.S. Code allow expedited removal and define federal authority. “So when people come up here and claim that ICE agents are literally ripping people out of their homes, it’s a half truth,” Young said during debate, urging caution to avoid exposing the county to a federal lawsuit.

Other board members, noting first‑hand reports from constituents, urged a more robust response. Board member Griep said she supported the measure but had hoped to see language clarifying support for lawful policing; she proposed an amendment to recognize lawful conduct by county law enforcement while condemning illegal actions by any officer.

State’s Attorney (name not specified in the transcript) told the board her office was ready to review proposed language and provide an assessment of what other counties had done and whether proposed restrictions were likely to withstand legal challenge. "I am more than happy to sit down and provide to you my assessment of other counties and other cities of what I believe is constitutional and not constitutional," she said.

The board settled on a motion to send the draft and related materials to the state's attorney for review and guidance rather than ordering the office to write policy. The board’s roll‑call vote recorded several dissenting votes and at least one abstention; the resolution to request legal review passed. The chair asked the legislative committee to monitor related state legislation, which board members noted could affect local options.

Next steps: the board directed staff and the state’s attorney’s office to review the proposed ordinance language and report back; members indicated they would consider revised wording and possible procedural follow-ups at a future meeting.