Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee backs county ordinance to limit local cooperation with immigration enforcement
Summary
The Cape Cod Regional Government Assembly standing committee advanced Ordinance 2026-11 to the full assembly after a 4–3 vote; the ordinance would require warrants for nonpublic courthouse areas, bar use of county property for staging enforcement, protect users' personal information, and require public reporting of enforcement on county property.
Delegate Dan Gessen, who introduced Ordinance 2026-11, told the committee on May 18 that the measure is designed to limit discretionary local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement at county facilities and courthouses. "The ordinance creates a blanket policy so that folks at the county . . . know that the county has set these specific ground rules in terms of their cooperation or noncooperation with immigration enforcement activity," he said.
The ordinance would require warrants for entry into nonpublic areas of county courthouses, forbid use of county parking lots and other county property as staging areas for immigration enforcement, protect personal information collected through county services from being used for immigration purposes, and prohibit county employees from being commandeered to carry out federal enforcement activity. It also includes reporting requirements so that any enforcement actions meeting the ordinance's criteria are reported to county commissioners and the county assembly and documented with available footage or reports.
Gessen framed the measure as filling gaps between state and municipal authority rather than conflicting with them. He cited a recent ICE memorandum and an ACLU study to argue that courthouses and court proceedings have been targeted in ways that deter witnesses and service users from coming forward. "If those folks are victims of crimes, witnesses to crimes, and they fear for their safety for coming to our courts, that makes everyone on Cape Cod significantly less safe," he said.
Opponents and cautious delegates raised practical concerns. Delegate Killian argued the ordinance could be premature while state legislation remains in conference committee and questioned how enforcement provisions—such as prohibiting staging—would be carried out in practice. "If we're not gonna be able to enforce that, I don't see any reason to keep that in the ordinance because it's pointless to have it," Killian said. Delegate Green asked whether the county administrator’s job description could absorb the ordinance's responsibilities and whether leased or federal property used by the county would be covered.
Gessen replied that the ordinance applies to county-leased properties to the extent the lease conveys county authority and that section 9 assigns implementation and enforcement responsibilities to the county administrator, including department-level procedures and training. He also said that adoption of an ordinance creates a legal basis for later recourse if a warrantless or unauthorized entry occurs.
After debate, Gessen moved to recommend the ordinance favorably to the full assembly; the committee adopted that motion on a roll-call vote, 4 yes to 3 no. The committee will forward the ordinance and its discussion to the full assembly for consideration at its upcoming meeting.
The ordinance and related documents will be available in the assembly packet for the full-body meeting, where members can propose amendments or further action.
