New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy has directed state police to ignore ICE administrative warrants, escalating the state’s long-running standoff with federal immigration authorities.
At a Glance
- Governor Murphy directs state law enforcement to disregard ICE administrative warrants
- Attorney General Platkin reinforces the Immigrant Trust Directive limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement
- State Police Colonel Callahan issues memo banning arrests based solely on ICE warrants
- U.S. Attorney Alina Habba insists federal orders will be enforced in New Jersey
- The directive fuels debate over state vs. federal control in immigration enforcement
New Jersey’s Directive Limits Cooperation with ICE
In a bold escalation of New Jersey’s immigration policy, Governor Phil Murphy has instructed law enforcement statewide to refrain from honoring administrative warrants issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The directive, backed by Attorney General Matt Platkin, builds upon the state’s 2018 Immigrant Trust Directive, which severs local police duties from federal immigration enforcement.
Platkin defended the move, saying the policy strengthens community trust by ensuring that crime victims and witnesses feel safe cooperating with police—without fear of deportation. “Plain and simple, there is no ‘sanctuary’ for criminals in New Jersey,” he said, adding that cooperation with federal authorities would still occur in cases involving violent offenders.
Watch Fox News’ report on the political clash over the ICE directive.
Murphy has a long record of opposing federal immigration crackdowns. After Trump’s 2016 election, he claimed to have deterred an ICE raid by personally visiting a neighborhood ICE had targeted, stating, “Whether that scared them off or not I don’t know, but… we’re willing to try anything if it’s contrary to our values.”
Police Memo Reinforces Restrictions on ICE Warrants
New Jersey State Police Superintendent Colonel Patrick Callahan issued an internal memo instructing officers to disregard “Outstanding Administrative Warrants for Removal” that have been entered into the FBI’s National Crime Information Center (NCIC) system. These civil warrants, unlike criminal ones, do not authorize arrests.
“These Administrative Warrant messages appear in NCIC… They are NOT to be broadcast as ‘NCIC Hits’,” Callahan wrote. He made clear that law enforcement action based solely on such warrants would violate the Attorney General’s directive. Officers are prohibited from notifying ICE or detaining individuals on that basis alone, reinforcing the legal wall between state duties and federal immigration enforcement.
According to New Jersey Monitor, this memo represents one of the clearest institutional statements yet distancing New Jersey police from ICE operations.
Federal Officials Push Back Against State Defiance
Federal officials have sharply criticized Murphy’s move, warning that state-level resistance could jeopardize national enforcement efforts. “Let me be clear: Executive Orders will be followed and enforced in the State of New Jersey,” said U.S. Attorney Alina Habba, signaling potential legal action against noncompliant state entities.
Meanwhile, conservative commentators and former Trump officials have called Murphy’s stance reckless. Tom Homan, former Acting ICE Director, suggested the Governor could face legal consequences if federal law is undermined.
As YourNews.com reports, the controversy is poised to spark a constitutional clash over the limits of state authority in matters traditionally overseen by the federal government.
The Broader Legal and Political Stakes
Murphy’s directive comes as immigration remains a flashpoint in national politics, especially heading into the 2024 presidential election. By drawing a sharp line between state and federal roles, New Jersey is testing the legal boundaries of what states can refuse to enforce.
Proponents argue the policy enhances public safety by building trust in immigrant communities. Critics view it as dangerous defiance of federal law. As this standoff unfolds, it may become a defining legal battle over how much autonomy states truly have in immigration enforcement—and what limits the federal government can impose.
