Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carlisle council adopts ordinance limiting borough cooperation with civil immigration enforcement, 7–1
Summary
After hours of public comment for and against, Carlisle Borough Council passed the 'Carlisle Community Trust and Local Autonomy Ordinance' to prohibit borough agents from conditioning services on immigration status and to restrict use of borough resources for civil immigration enforcement except in narrow circumstances; council cited anti‑commandeering precedent but opponents warned of legal and fiscal risk.
Carlisle Borough Council on Nov. 13 passed an ordinance designed to restrict local cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement, adopting it by a 7–1 roll‑call vote after an evening of extended public comment and debate.
The ordinance, moved and seconded by council members before a lengthy public‑comment period, bars borough agents from conditioning the provision of borough services on a person’s citizenship or immigration status unless required by federal or state law or a court order. It also says borough resources should not be used to assist civil immigration enforcement except in response to an imminent threat to life or public safety, or to comply with a judicial warrant.
Mayor Sean Schultz, who has defended the measure as consistent with the Tenth Amendment and established anti‑commandeering doctrine, said the ordinance does not alter local enforcement of criminal law. "The federal government cannot compel local government to take on that authority," he said, framing the ordinance as a clarification of local practice designed to protect residents and borough personnel. Schultz urged that the ordinance codifies longstanding borough policies rather than creating a new sanctuary policy.
Opponents, including Representative Barb Blime and several residents, said the ordinance could conflict with federal authority, invite litigation and jeopardize federal grants. Andrea Shaw, an attorney who addressed council during public comment, argued the measure "forces the borough to obstruct the federal government's attempt to enforce national immigration laws" and asked the council to table the vote to study constitutional risks.
Supporters said the text largely formalizes current practice and would build trust between immigrant residents and municipal services. "This ordinance is not a wholesale change in the law," said Devin Spiva, who urged council to adopt the measure to protect public‑safety reporting and community trust. Several residents recounted local incidents they said illustrated the need for clear limits on local involvement in civil immigration enforcement.
Council members debated potential consequences including lengthy legal battles and the possible loss or delay of federal grant funds. Councilor (speaker identified in the record) warned council that litigation could be expensive and tie up funds needed for local priorities. Ultimately the roll call recorded seven votes in favor and one opposed: Deputy mayor Landis — Aye; Councilor Mellon — No; Councilor Terry — Aye; Councilor Bruce — Aye; Councilor Shiles — Aye; Councilor Stewie — Aye; Mayor Schultz — Aye. The motion carried and the ordinance was adopted.
The ordinance text includes multiple qualifiers that, according to borough attorneys and supporters, are intended to avoid direct conflict with federal statutes. Opponents signaled intent to pursue further review; council members acknowledged that litigation and federal scrutiny are possible next steps. For now, the ordinance is in effect as adopted by the borough council.
