State College Borough Council passes ordinance to limit cooperation with ICE
Following months of community advocacy and more than an hour of debate Monday, the State College Borough Council unanimously approved an ordinance that formally limits the borough’s role in federal civil immigration enforcement. A resolution was also passed affirming principles on immigration enforcement, public safety and constitutional rights.
The ordinance, titled “State College Community Trust and Non-Participation in Civil Immigration Enforcement Ordinance,” was introduced by the borough administration and devised in a matter of months. Its main focus is to legally prohibit borough employees and resources from participating in federal civil immigration enforcement, except when required by federal or state law, a court order or a judicial warrant.
State College officials have repeatedly emphasized that borough police do not assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under longstanding policies, but advocates spent months urging council to turn those policies into legally binding law.
Much of council debate Monday centered around finalizing details in the ordinance specifying how far it should go in limiting borough involvement in civil immigration enforcement while still allowing lawful criminal investigations, and clarifying where and how those limits apply in the borough.
The discussion focused on whether borough agents such as State College police officers should ever be allowed to inquire about immigration status as part of a criminal investigation. Some members argued it could disincentivize police reporting and most members agreed it was not needed.
“I don’t know of any criminal statute that includes as its elements what someone’s immigration status is. So, I’m not sure that this is necessary,” council member Gopal Balachandran said.
Balachandran, an attorney and law professor, argued that law enforcement rarely ask for immigration status because it can discourage victims of crime to come forward during an investigation.
“Asking a victim of human trafficking or a victim of an armed robbery about immigration status actually chills the ability of proper criminal enforcement of the law,” he said.
Balachandran also noted how that is not required in model draft ordinances from ACLU and other immigrants’ rights organizations.
After the council approved an amendment to remove that requirement and prohibit law enforcement from seeking immigration status in all cases, council member John Hayes raised concerns over the unintended consequences of prohibiting law enforcement from seeking immigration status. He said it could hamper criminal investigations such as child exploitation and human trafficking.
“We just made it so that our police officers cannot ask human trafficking victims what their immigration status is. I think that’s directly relevant to that investigation,” he said.
A motion to restore the provision failed, permanently removing the requirement from the ordinance.
The council also addressed another change that was implemented before the meeting, where specific language that outlined what would happen if a borough agent or employee violated the ordinance was removed. Borough manager Tom Fountaine explained the council does not have the authority to impose conduct rules on individual employees.
“Council does not have the authority to regulate individual employees or pass ordinances or laws that control the conduct of individual employees, and that is specifically prohibited through the borough charter,” Fountaine said during the meeting. He added how council members would need to enforce conduct through internal matters and rely on him to enforce the ordinance.
“I would have to take action as a personnel matter, and if I fail to do that, you can take action against me,” he said.
Council members voiced an openness to amending the ordinance in the future, saying that passing the legislation is only one step in a longer process.
Council member Matt Herndon said that if the amendment to remove the requirement on immigration status proves to hinder investigations, they can amend the ordinance accordingly.
“We could just simply ask our police department if they have a child exploitation case, and they feel that this policy is severely hindering them, they should bring that to us, and we can amend it,” Herndon said, adding he personally believes that would not be the case.
Council member Nalini Krishnankutty emphasized that the ordinance would not stop ICE activity within the borough and that civic efforts are necessary to make an impact.
“I urge all of us to figure out what we can do at the county, state and federal level, and collectively all of us. What we can do at the ballot box. All of it,” she said. “And so I will be supporting it today, but I also want to say there’s a lot of work to be done.”
The council also passed a resolution consisting of nine statement principles that seek to solidify principles and regulations the borough will strive to uphold. Council President Evan Myers said this resolution could help enforce rules within the community that can’t be enforced as law, such as banning masks on federal agents.
“We have an ordinance that is effectively passing the law, and we have a resolution for items that our legal counsel did not feel we could legally pass as an ordinance, but that we want the community to know that this council stands for,” Myers said during the meeting.
The ordinance passed on a majority vote, with Hayes the only council member to vote against it.
“Even though I agree with every single thing in here, I’m voting against this resolution tonight solely because I don’t believe the messaging bills,” Hayes said regarding the resolution’s inability to enforce the principles.
How immigration advocacy played a key role
The council announced it would consider an ordinance aimed at protecting the borough’s immigrant communities from dangers related to ICE during a May meeting, after local advocates pushed for such a measure for months. Many voiced their concerns during an April 20 meeting urging the council to pass a legally-binding ordinance prohibiting State College’s collaboration with ICE.
A resolution brought forward by council member Matt Herndon earlier this year calling for ICE reforms was debated by council, with several members saying it lacked enforceable action and could attract unwanted attention and harm to the people it meant to protect. They ultimately decided in a 4-2 vote to table it during a February meeting.
Local anti-ICE demonstrations led by the People’s Defense Front and the Student Committee for Defense and Solidarity have taken place ever since the borough tabled the resolution and ICE presence increased in the community.
A group of about 30 protesters gathered at the Allen Street Gates ahead of Monday’s council meeting to protest against ICE and demand the borough council to pass an ordinance that prohibits the borough from collaborating with the agency.
Organizers have alleged SCPD has assisted ICE in at least two recent operations, including one on June 27 where one person was arrested. The borough said its police officers were not involved in the operations and did not assist ICE.
Though SCPD had policies of non-compliance with ICE, protesters argued they didn’t go far enough. The Centre County Rapid Response Network, a volunteer based network focused on protecting immigrant communities against deportation threats, gathered signatures through a petition, urging the council to pass an ordinance draft they proposed called the Welcoming Ordinance detailing specific language to prohibit cooperation with ICE.
After initially voicing concern about the first version of the ordinance reviewed Monday, the group said it was satisfied with the last-minute changes that removed immigration status enforcement and legal ordinance enforcement within the borough.
“I want to thank all of you for supporting this ordinance,” the Rev. Tracy Sprowls, a member of the Rapid Response Network, told council members. “It means a lot to the security of this community, and it means a lot to these citizens, our citizens, our neighbors. So, thank you.”
Cricket Hunter, a volunteer member of the network, told the CDT the group is satisfied with the ordinance changes and glad the council is willing to continue working on the ordinance.
“It’s a really big accomplishment, I’m also really glad that I was hearing some of this commitment to getting some of the details worked out,” she said. “What we know is that things keep changing, and so we’re going to have to keep paying attention ... I’m glad they are not treating this as a one and done.”
This story was originally published July 7, 2026 at 12:34 PM.
