Why the Chicago Mayor’s ‘ICE-Free Zones’ Executive Order Is Doomed to Fail
They gave a stand down order in Chicago and they gave a stand down order in Portland! … Local and state police are resourced to deal with this kind of riotous assembly. But they have refused.
Two days after Chicago activists used their cars to ram ICE vehicles, box them in, and even try to run down agents after they’d exited their trapped vehicle, Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order creating “ICE-free zones” from which federal immigration agents would be prohibited from operating.
At the Monday signing ceremony, the Marxist mayor said he was acting to “rein in this out of control administration. This means that city property and unwilling private businesses will no longer serve as staging grounds for these raids.
“The Trump administration must end the war on Chicago,” Johnson demanded. “The Trump administration must end this war against Americans. The Trump administration must end its attempt to dismantle our democracy.”
Johnson added a new claim to his repertoire: the “extreme right” still refuses to accept the outcome of the Civil War.
“They have repeatedly called for a rematch, but in the coming weeks, we will use this opportunity to build greater resistance,” he insisted. “Chicagoans are clear that militarizing our troops in our city as justification to further escalate a war in Chicago will not be tolerated.”
“The right wing in this country wants a rematch of the Civil War.”
Considering that the “right wing,” which fought to abolish slavery, won the Civil War, why in the world would we want a rematch?
Finally, Johnson threatened legal action if the Trump administration violates his order. He warned Trump to leave Chicago “the freak alone.”
His rhetoric only reinforced the reasons why Johnson’s approval once fell into the single digits and remains dangerously low to this day.
"Mayor" Brandon Johnson says the quiet part out loud:
"Civil War."
Trump has never said those words. Never. He is simply enforcing the law as ordered by Article IV Sect. 4, "shall protect each of [the States] against invasion."
This violent rhetoric from the Commie "Mayor"… pic.twitter.com/XPjINiZvIz
— CannCon (@CannConActual) October 7, 2025
At any rate, Johnson needn’t have bothered. While I’m not a lawyer, the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution makes it pretty clear that when a conflict arises, federal law overrides any conflicting state or local regulations.
The White House’s Rapid Response 47 account on X swiftly denounced Johnson’s new executive order, labeling it “SICK” and charging that he was “aiding and abetting criminal illegal immigrant killers, rapists, traffickers, and gang members.”
Separately, Johnson and Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker filed a lawsuit Monday attempting to block the Trump administration’s deployment of 400 National Guard troops to the state.
Their efforts, coming after another bloody weekend in the Windy City that saw 30 shootings result in five deaths, will ultimately fail because the law is not on their side: “10 U.S. Code Section 252 authorizes the President to deploy U.S. armed forces and state militia when unlawful obstructions, rebellion, or other disturbances make it impossible to enforce federal laws through the ordinary court system. This provision allows the President to use federal military force to enforce federal law or suppress insurrections even without a request from the affected state’s governor or legislature.”
It might surprise Pritzker, Johnson, and other blue state officials in the U.S. to find that the vast majority of Americans support the Trump administration’s efforts to crack down on illegal immigration.
A recent poll found that 78% of Americans surveyed support deporting immigrants who are here illegally and have committed crimes. And 56% support deporting all immigrants who are here illegally.
Yet they continue to cater to the far-left wing of their base, which demands resistance to Trump at every turn and views every undocumented immigrant as a future Democratic voter. And because they have the full support of the legacy media, Democrats largely get away with their hyperbole.
On Monday afternoon, CNN anchor Boris Sanchez seemed to forget he was speaking with one of the Trump administration’s most unflinching figures and attempted to press a familiar Democratic talking point. He was swiftly and decisively swatted down by the inimitable White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.
Sanchez asks what “if a Democratic president someday calls the National Guard to a red state over what they see as open rebellion, but is what amounts to a demonstration that gets rowdy?”
Miller chuckles before unleashing a punishing, but well-deserved rebuttal on the hapless journalist.
They’re [demonstrators] posting pictures of their [federal agent’s] kids because it’s a ‘demonstration?’ They have a sniper on top of a building firing a high caliber rifle at an ICE facility because it’s a ‘demonstration?’ And they are engaged with vehicle ramming attacks because its a ‘demonstration?’
Sanchez chimes in, “But National Guard isn’t being sent to Dallas, Texas, where that sniper was.”
Miller replied:
Wow, you walked right into that one. Because the Dallas police department and the governor of Texas have RESPONDED to EVERY call for assistance and help.
They gave a stand down order in Chicago and they gave a stand down order in Portland! Do you realize that there’s 11,000 federal law enforcement officers in Oregon? That’s larger than the size of the FBI.
Local and state police are resourced to deal with this kind of riotous assembly. But they have refused. They’ve been given a stand down order.
Sanchez interrupts to note that some activists have been arrested. Miller ignores him and continues.
“So, we need to use National Guard and federal troops to fill in that breach,” Miller says. “We literally have the 911 audio of the stand down order in Chicago and we have documented inside of DHS every single un-responded to 911 call over the recent weeks and months.”
Say what you will about Stephen Miller, he knows how to win an argument. But he didn’t prevail in that exchange solely because of his formidable debating skills — he won because the Left’s position, rooted in a refusal to uphold America’s own immigration laws, is simply indefensible.
🚨 BREAKING: Stephen Miller is holding NOTHING back against this clueless CNN host.
CNN: It's just a demonstration that gets rowdy!
MILLER: They have a sniper on top of a building firing a high caliber rifle at an ICE facility because it's a 'demonstration?' And they are… pic.twitter.com/6e8urr3PW0
— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) October 6, 2025
Elizabeth writes commentary for Legal Insurrection and The Washington Examiner. She is an academy fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Please follow Elizabeth on X or LinkedIn.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Read Title 10 USC 12406. Chicago is wrong.
What has Chicago got to do with that? I think you’re confusing Chicago with Illinois, and Johnson with Pritzker. Johnson has not had anything to say about the National Guard, because there’s nothing he can say. That’s not his department.
The use of city-owned property is his department, and he has the authority to deny the federal government permission to use that property. So they’ll just have to use the streets instead. If that disrupts traffic, that’s Johnson’s problem, not theirs.
You are half-right. Mayor Johnson does not have a say in the NG.
While as Mayor he can designate how city property will be used, I’m pretty sure he can’t do so in a way that obstructs ongoing federal law enforcement activity. The Feds could go around him (use the street, as you say), or they can do a quick and temporary claim to make use during the law enforcement action. If that action becomes prolonged and the city still refuses to cooperate, the Feds could do an eminent domain claim — they win on that.
It doesn’t obstruct their activity, because they have no right to use state property for that activity in the first place. That’s the anti-commandeering doctrine. The federal government can’t commandeer the resource of a state or its subdivisions. Therefore the state and its subdivisions can refuse any assistance to the federal government.
So I don’t think eminent domain would work either, since that would be commandeering.
In that way the state has more power than a private property owner; private property can sometimes be commandeered, but state property can’t.
Been saying the Marxists want Civil War II
Looks like Chicago separated from the Union.
If one was paying attention, our country, the USA has been in a civil war for more than a decade. Its a conflict between the political left and political right. The right as usual is very slow recognizing it is under attack. The level of violence is slowly ticking up and there probably is significant foreign money and influence assisting the left’s increasing violence. The left is seeking to establish a communist government, maybe subtly or even by election. Of their political candidates. Then it will be too late. Think about why the left is so anti 2A. 2A is not about hunting, sports or self defense. Read the Declaration of Independence along with 2A. The people’s right to bear arms shall not be infringed! Why, so the people can protect themselves from oppressive governments, like king George. 2A in reality, probably gives the people the right to have cannons, M1 Tanks or F35 Jet Aircraft. Be prepared! Wake up America before its too late and you don’t exist.
Mr. Mayor you run Chiraq, you need help.
Democrats Love their Crime.
Chicago use to be fairly safe with the Daleys in power
Wrong Color and main foes were real gangster’s not the black mafia or Antifa
Build a fence around the city so high, thick, and deep that even Snake Plisskin couldn’t escape on his best day. Tired of his racist garbage.
First, pull every penny of funding from chicago. Secondly, pull every Federal employee other than ice agents and Federal Protective Service and DHS from Chicago. Third, make it very clear that those federal employees that are on a war footing in the attacking them is a really good way to commit suicide.
The mayor sounds insurrectiony.
Civil War eh, Mr. Mayor?
Be careful what you wish for. Your city manufactures essentially nothing, has no armed forces and would fall to federal troops quickly.
I call on Mr. Trump to suspend the writ of habius corpus in Illinois and throw the mayor in jail.
What a rock-stupid man.
The president can’t suspend habeas corpus.
Not even Congress can suspend it unless there’s a rebellion or invasion, and the public safety requires it. But the president can’t do it even then. Lincoln acted illegally.
Lincoln did.
And Lincoln acted illegally.
Article I, section 9: “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”
Let’s parse that, shall we?
It’s in Article I so it’s a power of the legislature. Second, it’s a privilege, not a right, so habeas corpus can be regulated. Next, a ‘case’ of ‘rebellion’ or ‘invasion’ is required. The flooding of our country with illegal immigrants does not meet the classic definition of invasion. But a governor and big-city mayor stating that they will not cooperate with legal Fed law enforcement, and taking concrete steps to interfere, sounds (to use the word) ‘insurrectiony’ to me. Rebellion? Shmaybe, Might be close enough. How much rebellion should a republic tolerate? Particularly when it comes from public officials?
Then the clause that ‘public Safety may require it’ — the key word isn’t public safety, but ‘may’. Legally that’s very different than ‘shall’. ‘May’ is open to interpretation Public safety is pretty clear; most everything law enforcement does is tied to public safety, so interfering with Fed officials (ICE) enforcing immigration orders is indeed impinging on public safety. What ‘may’ require suspension of habeas? One good reason might be to deal with rebellious state officials.
The president ca’t suspend habeas on his own, it’s an Article I power. But as you point out Lincoln did, and in doing so he set a precedent. I don’t favor having a president doing it again. I’d prefer the Congress to act, but our current President certainly won’t allow rebellion to fester if the Congress (as usual) fails us.
Does this guy not know that it was Democrats who insisted on having the Civil War and who lost? Is he truly that ignorant or truly that dishonest?
Never mind. I vote for both.
His EO is doomed to fail because he’s swinging a D he ain’t got.
Heck, even Lori Lightfoot ain’t got that big a D.
He has the authority to refuse the federal government permission to use city property.
I’m not sure of that. He can refuse to let the Feds use city property in some cases — if Mr. Trump wanted to host a public speech at Buckingham Fountain, he’d need the city’s permission. But I’m not sure the Mayor can refuse to let the Feds use city property for exigent law enforcement. Would be good to have a lawyer /constitutional scholar weigh in.
It’s the anti-commandeering doctrine. Even in cases when private property can be commandeered, the property of a state or its subdivisions can’t be.
I’m vaguely surprised Milhouse hasn’t weighed in on this topic.
He hasn’t though of his angle to try to pretend to support the Chicago mayor yet..
And you’re an idiot. It’s completely obvious that Johnson is within his authority and isn’t breaking any law. You can refuse the government permission to use your property; why would the City of Chicago not have the same right?
I think your answer is too simplistic. The Johnson declared ICE Free Zones bar the federal agents from “operating” in the ICE free zones. The public property/public access/public use characterizations of a lot of the properties make it a little more nuanced than your conclusion. The other question becomes whether the “operations” are under a warrant. Your position has more merit where the use of the public property is for parking vehicles, but can Chicago bar the Federal government from executing a warrant in a courthouse? In a city owned parking lot? Interfering with an ICE agent arresting a person pursuant to a warrant in a city owned parking lot is going to be VERY problematic if Johnson goes there.
You seem to be confused about what Johnson has done. All he has done is forbidden the federal government to use city property for staging its operations. They can still carry out their operations, but they have to use public property such as the streets, and not city-owned property such as parking lots.
An officer with a proper warrant, issued by an Article 3 judge, can execute it anywhere. He can enter private property, if he has good reason to believe the person or evidence to be searched or seized is there. And Johnson’s order doesn’t purport to change that. Which is a good thing, because he can’t.
Interesting that I can’t reply to your comment below, but you need to read the executive order. It states that city owned property “may not be used for civil immigration enforcement, including . . .” whether by the Federal government or anyone else. Construed in a legal sense, the “including” provides examples, not limitations. It is completely obvious that Johnson is NOT within his authority to physically impede all immigration operations by the Federal government. The implementation, “ensuring that, wherever possible, physical barriers such as locked gates are used to limit access to City property for the purpose of federal immigration enforcement”, is more than arguably OOJ, if not aiding and abetting an alien with a valid deportation order to escape apprehension, which are both Federal crimes.
Isn’t Mayor Brandon’s order insurrection? He’s explicitly saying the federal government, or parts of it, are not permitted in parts of ‘his’ territory.
No, it is not insurrection! How is asserting the city’s property rights insurrection? If you refuse the police permission to use your back yard, is that insurrection too?!
If the police were conducting a law enforcement operation they absolutely have the right to use my property to do so — that’s actually settled law here in Illinois, and believe elsewhere as well.
Example: car crash on the street in front of you, really bad, and the police need to bring in an air ambulance and use your front lawn to stage. Yep, they can do that even if you run out there waving your arms telling them to stop.
Example: man in the house next door to your house takes a hostage and barricades himself inside. Police can order you from your home and then put a sniper sitting at your kitchen window, even if it means your kitchen is trashed (in some but not all states the police have to pay for damages afterwards).
You get the idea. One can’t assert ‘property rights’ to interfere with exigent law enforcement.
Even in such cases, the federal government can’t commandeer state property without the state’s consent. That’s a basic tenth amendment right, and well-established for over 200 years.
Second point: what exactly are the city’s ‘property rights’? Not quite the same as yours and mine. The city does own the property, and by ordinance they decide how to use it. But that’s for the public good as opposed to a private interest (as your home is your private interest). The Supremacy Clause, I’ll wager, covers the use of Fed law enforcement using city property to stage an operation. It would be nice to ask first and nicer if the city agrees, but if they don’t the Feds can overrule. And of course, it doesn’t work in the opposite direction — the village of Broadview can’t declare eminent domain over the ICE facility.
Mitchell v. City of Henderson is pertinent?
That one is pretty twisty-turny. How did it end up?
Not true. The city can use its property for any purpose it likes, including completely private purposes. For instance it could lease the property to a private party, which would have the same control over it as any other tenant.
And the Supremacy clause merely says that a valid federal law overrides any state law that contradicts it. But federal law is constrained by the tenth amendment, including the anti-commandeering doctrine.
Democrats formed their Confederacy, seceded from the Union, and started the Civil War after Lincoln was elected but before he took office for one reason: The R’s were the Party of Abolition and the D’s wanted to keep their slaves. Northern D’s position was to let the South go and be a separate nation (a position they held throughout the war).
Today, D’s have de facto gone to war against the Union yet again, Civil War 2.0, for essentially the same reason: to keep their slaves. Their illegal alien de facto slave labor (and future voter base).
Mayor Johnson is a RACIST who is simply trying to incite racial hatred and violence against Republicans. Is he really this historically ignorant as well?
Probably.
Democrats are Terrorists
Liberalism is a mental disorder
Agreed (and IANAL) but the facts seemed to match your hypothetical, so I threw it out there…
Resolution: 3A claim denied, other claims settled out of court. (As best I can tell and see disclaimer above…)
but again it proves that
the military by and large will just do as their told
not everyone..but most/enough to submit maga
A point to consider, though I don’t think it’s relevant to state (and therefore city) property: The 3rd amendment is not currently in operation, because the USA is at war. It doesn’t matter that the war is far away; the text says that it only applies in peacetime, so as soon as there’s a legal state of war the amendment is suspended until that war is over.