Oak Park issues formal policy: city will not assist ICE without a judicial warrant, officials reassure residents

Oak Park city officials on Feb. 2 read a formal statement clarifying that the city and its public safety department will not enforce federal civil immigration law unless required by law or presented with a judicial warrant, and that the city will not enter into a 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

City Manager Tongate read the statement at the start of the city‑manager portion of the meeting, telling residents: "the city of Oak Park and our public safety department want to assure the community that ICE has never contacted our department for any type of assistance nor have we provided it." Director of Public Safety Cooper later reinforced that commitment, saying the department "will continue to prioritize public safety, trust, and community well‑being for every resident and visitor in Oak Park to the best of our ability."

The statement aimed at correcting social‑media rumors and calming residents who had expressed fear that Oak Park might cooperate with federal immigration operations. Dozens of residents attended the meeting and used the call‑to‑the‑audience period to praise the city for the clarification, ask how the policy will be publicized, and press for practical guidance for residents and officers in the event of an immigration enforcement action. "I am afraid of ICE," one resident said during public comment, echoing others who asked how officers will verify warrants and what resources the city will provide to people who believe an enforcement action is occurring in their neighborhood.

City officials emphasized limits on local authority. Councilmember Solomon Radnor reminded the audience that cities cannot control ICE and that the difference between administrative and judicial warrants matters for local enforcement. Manager Tongate said the city has developed an administrative policy with its legal team governing how staff interact with federal law enforcement and instructed employees to require a judge‑signed warrant before allowing access to nonpublic areas. He also invited residents to contact the public safety director or community resource officer with questions after the meeting.

Residents and some council members urged the city to take additional steps: make the policy broadly available, provide officer training and practical instructions for residents if an enforcement action occurs, and consider zoning or other local tools where lawful and appropriate. Council members and staff repeatedly stressed the city's limited legal power over federal agencies and encouraged residents to verify information from official city channels.

The meeting concluded with expressions of appreciation from community members for the statement and council members encouraging continued community engagement and public education. No formal ordinance or legislative change was advanced at the meeting; the statement was presented administratively and affirmed by staff and department leadership.