Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order creating “ICE-free zones” across the city – just as President Trump moved to deploy National Guard troops in and around Chicago. That’s the moment captured by LiveNOW from FOX host J Russell, who read out the mayor’s position on-air and then rolled remarks from Johnson and allied local officials. Meanwhile, Washington Gun Law host William Kirk asked the blunt question many lawyers were already mulling: is the order worth the paper it’s printed on?
What Johnson Actually Ordered, According to LiveNOW from FOX
Reporting live, LiveNOW from FOX’s Asher Redd summarized the executive order’s mechanics: city property – “libraries, schools and even parks,” along with city-owned parking lots, vacant lots and garages – may not be used by ICE as staging areas, processing locations, or operational bases. Redd added that the mayor is building a voluntary network for private businesses to “sign up” for protections from ICE raids and is distributing signage that says no law enforcement officer may enter for civil immigration enforcement purposes. Johnson also warned, per Redd’s report, that “in the coming days and weeks” the city “may be pushed…to take more dramatic action” depending on the federal response.
Johnson’s Rationale: Rights, Trust, and a Rebuke to Washington
In a tweet read by J Russell, Mayor Brandon Johnson said Chicago “will not tolerate ICE agents violating our residents’ constitutional rights” or allow the federal government to “disregard our local authority.” He accused agents of detaining elected officials, tear gassing protesters and children, and abusing residents. From the podium, Johnson framed the clash as a fight to protect a government “of, by, and for the people,” while accusing the president of seeking to “use the military and his private militarized force to repress the rights of poor and working people”.
The mayor is putting the conflict in constitutional rights language, not only immigration policy. That’s politically effective – rights language is sticky – but it also tees up the inevitable constitutional question: where do local powers end when they collide with federal enforcement?
The Fine Print: Sections, Signs, and a Big Carve-Out
On Washington Gun Law, attorney William Kirk walked through selected provisions of the order. Section 1 says city-owned/controlled lots and garages cannot be used for civil immigration enforcement staging, processing, or operations. Section 2 directs city departments to identify such properties, post clear signage, and, “where appropriate,” install physical barriers (locked gates) to limit access consistent with the order. Section 3 prints and hands out “ICE-free” signs to private owners. But Section 4 includes a notable caveat: nothing in the order shall restrict execution of lawful judicial warrants, criminal law enforcement, or any rights under state/federal law.
Kirk quipped the signage felt “much like a gun-free zone,” but his more pointed observation was legal: if ICE is executing lawful federal authority, City Hall’s own carve-out admits the mayor can’t stop that.
The Business Angle: Consent, Signs, and Real-World Friction
Per Asher Redd’s report for LiveNOW from FOX, the city will give participating businesses signs declaring that law enforcement may not enter for civil immigration enforcement. Practically, this leans on a basic Fourth Amendment principle: absent consent, exigency, or a judicial warrant, officers generally need legal process to enter non-public areas. As a voluntary signal of non-consent, a posted sign can matter.
On private property, this is legally savvy messaging – no consent, get a warrant. On public property, signs are posture, not force fields. The moment signage morphs into physical obstruction of federal officers, the legal footing gets much shakier.
The National Guard Overlay: Lawsuits, Restraint Orders, and Political Heat
LiveNOW from FOX also reported that Chicago and Illinois sued the Trump Administration over Guard deployments, after the president authorized 300 Illinois National Guard troops “to protect Federal officers from violent protests,” and approved 400 Texas National Guard troops for protection in Illinois, Oregon, and “potentially other places.” Redd noted that a federal judge blocked the Guard deployment to Oregon as unlawful.
Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle called the deployments a “dangerous and reckless abuse of power,” pledging an amicus brief to block them and characterizing federal actions as intimidation “dressed up as law and order”. This isn’t just about immigration anymore; it’s now a multi-front federalism contest.
Supporters’ Case: “This Is Not Authoritarianism Country”
From the LiveNOW from FOX clip, Toni Preckwinkle argued local leaders have worked “for years” to reimagine safety through trust and prevention, not militarization. She framed Guard deployments as punishment for local governments exercising their “sovereign right” to enact constitutional ordinances. The message: Chicago isn’t lawless; it’s asserting home rule values against federal overreach.
This is classic home-rule politics: local safety strategies vs. one-size federal muscle. But Guard deployments are typically framed as protecting federal property/personnel – where federal authority is strongest. Expect courts to parse who is protecting what very carefully.
Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García’s Warning: “A State of Siege”
Rep. Jesús García (D-IL) told LiveNOW from FOX that ICE has created a “state of siege” in his community, alleging agents shot into cars, used chemical agents near bystanders, and assaulted parents in front of children. He said his oath is to the Constitution, not to “tyranny,” and urged the public to “fight as if the courts still mattered” – because they do.
García’s rhetoric underscores why the mayor’s order resonates politically. When constituents (rightly or wrongly) perceive federal enforcement as lawless, local leaders will default to shield-and-signal strategies – creating the very conflicts that end up in federal court.
The Kirk Critique: Supremacy Clause and a Potential Federal Crime
On Washington Gun Law, William Kirk emphasized the Supremacy Clause (U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2): federal law preempts conflicting state and local edicts. He then raised a sharper point: 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii) makes it a crime to “conceal, harbor, or shield from detection” a person unlawfully present; § 1324(a)(1)(A)(v) extends liability to those who aid/abet or conspire. Kirk argued that instructing city staff to erect physical barriers to block ICE access could cross from non-cooperation into willful hindrance, risking exposure under § 1324.
That’s a serious charge – legally and politically. Sanctuary jurisdictions traditionally rely on the anti-commandeering doctrine (the feds can’t force local police to help). But anti-commandeering does not authorize obstruction. The moment a city moves from “we won’t help” to “we’ll stop you,” it’s on thinner ice.
The Nuance That Will Decide the Case: Non-Cooperation vs. Obstruction
There is a legal line between (1) declining to provide local resources for civil immigration enforcement and (2) impeding federal agents executing lawful authority. The mayor’s carve-out for “lawful judicial warrants” and “criminal law” shows City Hall knows it can’t stop a valid raid or arrest. The risk lies in how “physical barriers,” “access restrictions,” and “no-go” rhetoric are implemented. A locked gate on a city lot after hours? Likely fine. A chain thrown in front of an ICE convoy mid-operation? Not fine.
Courts often look at effect over branding. If the city’s policy as applied delays or thwarts federal operations, expect emergency injunctions – and possibly § 1324 theories aimed (at minimum) at enjoining specific practices.
What It Means on the Ground: Signs Aren’t Shields
Practically, “ICE-free zone” signs don’t bind federal officers on public property, and they don’t trump a warrant anywhere. On private premises, a posted “no consent to civil enforcement entry” sign clarifies that agents must rely on lawful process to enter non-public areas – which is entirely orthodox Fourth Amendment law. But refusal to consent is different from blocking entry after a judge has blessed it. The mayor’s policy will live or die in these details: what’s a “no-go,” how are barriers used, and how quickly do city personnel stand down upon presentation of federal authority?
Can the Mayor Do This?
As a statement of values and an internal use-of-property policy, yes – Mayor Johnson can say the city won’t offer its lots and buildings to stage civil immigration enforcement. As a binding constraint on federal agents, no – the Supremacy Clause wins. As a private-property empowerment tool, yes – businesses can decline consent for civil entry absent lawful process. As a physical impediment to federal law enforcement, no – that veers toward obstruction, the very risk Washington Gun Law’s William Kirk highlighted under 8 U.S.C. § 1324.
LiveNOW from FOX (host J Russell, reporter Asher Redd) captured the politics and the local coalition – Mayor Brandon Johnson, Toni Preckwinkle, and Rep. Jesús García – while Washington Gun Law’s William Kirk laid out the constitutional and statutory tripwires. My view: Chicago can craft policy that keeps its fingerprints off civil immigration operations and clarifies private non-consent. But if “ICE-free zone” becomes “ICE-can’t-enter,” the courts will swat it down fast – and perhaps harshly.
UP NEXT: “Heavily Armed” — See Which States Are The Most Strapped
Image Credit: Survival World
Americans have long debated the role of firearms, but one thing is sure — some states are far more armed than others. See where your state ranks in this new report on firearm ownership across the U.S.
Mark grew up in the heart of Texas, where tornadoes and extreme weather were a part of life. His early experiences sparked a fascination with emergency preparedness and homesteading. A father of three, Mark is dedicated to teaching families how to be self-sufficient, with a focus on food storage, DIY projects, and energy independence. His writing empowers everyday people to take small steps toward greater self-reliance without feeling overwhelmed.