Aurora City Council voted 6–4 on Jan. 12 to adopt an emergency resolution opposing what the city described as unlawful and overreaching federal immigration enforcement actions and affirming protections for due process.

The resolution (11A3) was introduced by Mayor Pro Tem Tim Coombs and brought directly to the council as an emergency item after a lengthy public hearing that drew dozens of speakers. Supporters described recent national incidents and local reports of ICE activity and urged the council to act. Aaron Futrell told the council, “We can protect our diverse population, or we can look away,” and argued the resolution “draws a line that says Aurora will not participate in tearing families apart.” Other speakers urged the city to move beyond symbolism and examine contracts, surveillance tools and local policies that may facilitate federal enforcement.

Opponents warned the resolution could be largely symbolic or risk the city’s federal funding, and asked for more specificity about which constitutional or statutory standards the council claimed had been violated. One speaker argued the measure was “retail politics” and said the council should focus on nonpolitical operations such as public safety and infrastructure.

During council debate several members pressed for clearer, fact-based language and asked staff to identify any legal or fiscal constraints from state law. City Attorney Pete Schulz and staff said state statutes already limit certain types of local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and that the resolution’s primary purpose was to direct a policy committee to analyze operational actions the city could legally take. Council members also discussed whether wording that described deaths as “extrajudicial” should name an individual agent rather than the agency; proponents said the broader language reflected systemic harms witnessed by residents.

The resolution passed with six yes votes and four no votes. It directs the city manager and city attorney to bring detailed proposals to the Public Safety Committee, including options to limit information-sharing, restrict facility access and assess implications for grant funding and compliance with state law. The measure does not by itself change local law.

Next steps: the council directed the Public Safety Committee to begin detailed review in February and asked staff to prepare analyses of state statutory constraints, potential impacts on federal funding and operational options the city could implement without violating state or federal law.