Michigan Immigration: State Rules vs. Federal Law - and What to Do Here

This article reflects Michigan law and enforcement conditions as of June 2026. Michigan has no statewide sanctuary law and no statewide law prohibiting or requiring local cooperation with ICE. As of June 2026, at least seven Michigan law enforcement agencies had signed 287(g) agreements with ICE: Berrien, Calhoun, Crawford, Genesee, Jackson, and Roscommon counties, plus the city of Taylor Police Department. A package of protective state Senate bills, SB 508, SB 509, and SB 510, passed the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee in late March 2026 and advanced to the full Senate floor. Their final passage and signed status as of June 2026 requires verification with the ACLU of Michigan at aclumich.org or the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center at michiganimmigrant.org. Enforcement varies dramatically by county: Detroit, Dearborn, and Ann Arbor have strong local non-cooperation postures, while Macomb County and some outer-ring suburbs have actively cooperated with ICE. ICE arrests in Michigan nearly tripled from 2024 to October 2025.

Where Michigan Stands

Michigan is one of the most instructive middle-ground states in this series. It is not a sanctuary state, and no law prevents Michigan agencies from cooperating with ICE. But it is also not an enforcement-mandate state: no law requires cooperation, and agency postures range from active collaboration to deliberate non-involvement. The result is a county-by-county patchwork that is among the most geographically fragmented enforcement pictures in the country.

What makes Michigan editorially distinctive is the collision between its demographics and its enforcement map. The state is home to the largest concentration of Arab-American residents outside the Middle East, centered in Dearborn and the surrounding communities of southeast Michigan. It has significant Latino populations in the agricultural western part of the state (Holland, Muskegon, Kalamazoo), a growing Somali-American community in Detroit and Hamtramck, and well-established immigrant communities from dozens of countries across the metro area. ICE arrests in Michigan nearly tripled from 2024 levels by October 2025. That enforcement surge is landing on a state with no uniform rules about whether local agencies will cooperate.

Michigan also illustrates the legislative dynamics of a closely divided state that Democratic majorities in both chambers have struggled to move through to signature. The protective bills, SB 508, SB 509, and SB 510, had majority Democratic committee support but faced Republican opposition and, as of June 2026, had not yet been signed into law. The bills remain a live possibility and families should verify their status. The practical reality on the ground in Michigan today is shaped not by state statute but by the individual policies of county sheriffs, police chiefs, and city councils.

Part 1: What Federal Immigration Law Actually Says

Immigration enforcement is exclusively a federal function under the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The federal government controls who may enter, remain in, and be removed from the United States. State and local governments cannot create independent immigration enforcement schemes that conflict with the INA. However, they also have no obligation to participate in federal enforcement.

The Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering doctrine, established in Printz v. United States (1997), means the federal government cannot compel Michigan sheriffs or police chiefs to detain people for ICE, process immigration detainers, or conduct immigration enforcement operations. Michigan agencies that cooperate with ICE do so voluntarily. Michigan agencies that decline to cooperate are also acting within constitutional bounds. The absence of a state law on either side means individual agencies make that choice for themselves.

Section 287(g) of the INA is the voluntary delegation mechanism. When a Michigan sheriff signs a 287(g) agreement, trained deputies receive limited authority to perform immigration enforcement functions under ICE supervision. As of June 2026, seven Michigan agencies had active agreements. These are voluntary choices by the individual agencies, not requirements under state law.

ICE detainers, Form I-247, are administrative requests, not court orders. They ask county jails to hold someone beyond their release date so ICE can take custody. Multiple federal circuits have held that honoring a civil detainer without a judicial warrant may expose the holding agency to Fourth Amendment liability for unlawful detention. Michigan agencies that honor detainers do so voluntarily and assume that liability risk.

Arizona v. United States (2012) is the controlling preemption precedent. The Court struck down most of Arizona's SB 1070, confirming that states cannot create their own immigration enforcement schemes. Michigan has not attempted to do so. The contested question in Michigan is at the local agency level, not the state level.

Part 2: Michigan State Law and Local Enforcement

No Statewide Sanctuary or Mandatory Cooperation Law

Michigan has neither a statewide sanctuary law prohibiting local cooperation with ICE nor a statewide mandatory cooperation law requiring it. This makes Michigan one of the clearest examples of what the middle ground looks like in practice: everything depends on the county and city where you live or are encountered by law enforcement. The state legislature has introduced bills on both sides. Republican-sponsored bills would require local agencies to honor ICE detainers and share immigration status information. Democratic-sponsored bills would restrict ICE at sensitive locations, limit data sharing, and prohibit masked federal enforcement. As of June 2026, neither set of bills had been enacted into law.

Counties and Cities with 287(g) Agreements

As of June 2026, the following Michigan law enforcement agencies had signed 287(g) agreements with ICE: Berrien County, Calhoun County, Crawford County, Genesee County, Jackson County, Roscommon County, and the city of Taylor Police Department. These agencies signed their agreements primarily in 2025, and some had not yet completed the required federal training and deputization process as of early 2026.

Taylor Police Department, in suburban Wayne County, signed a Task Force Model 287(g) agreement in April 2025. Under this model, trained Taylor officers can make immigration arrests during routine police duties, not only at the jail. Taylor Police Chief John Blair stated publicly that his officers would contact ICE if a suspect was arrested and identified as undocumented. The Taylor agreement is notable because it is one of the few Task Force Model agreements in the Detroit metro area, which otherwise has a predominantly non-cooperation posture.

Jackson County signed an agreement in March 2025, one of the earliest Michigan county agreements. As of early 2026, Jackson County's undersheriff stated that the department had not yet completed the required federal training and deputization process, meaning the agreement existed on paper but deputies were not yet fully operational under it.

The Macomb County Sheriff's Office, while not holding a formal 287(g) agreement as of early 2026, has been reported to have deputies contact CBP if they determine someone at a traffic stop is undocumented. Sheriff Anthony Wickersham publicly stated his office would assist ICE if asked, comparing it to assisting neighboring law enforcement agencies. This informal cooperation posture, without a formal 287(g) agreement, represents a middle category of agency conduct that families in Macomb County should be aware of.

Detroit, Dearborn, Ann Arbor, and Non-Cooperation Cities

Detroit has deliberately maintained a non-cooperation posture. Detroit Police Chief Charles Fitzgerald told the Detroit City Council that officers who called Border Patrol after traffic stops broke municipal policy. The City of Detroit does not cooperate with ICE civil enforcement as a matter of city policy. Detroit's posture reflects both political leadership and the city's demographics: Detroit has significant communities of color, immigrant communities, and a long history of community-police trust concerns that local leadership does not want ICE activity to undermine.

Dearborn, home to the largest concentration of Arab-American residents outside the Middle East, has maintained a similar posture. Dearborn Police Chief Issa Shahin stated publicly that his officers do not work with immigration agents or ask people about their status. Dearborn's position is shaped by the demographics and the intense community trust concerns that any change in posture would produce.

Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County have taken explicit institutional positions. On January 21, 2026, the Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners passed a resolution limiting immigration agents' presence on all county property, affirming that ICE shall not be permitted to enter, remain in, or conduct civil immigration enforcement activities within any Washtenaw County-owned, leased, or operated building, facility, or property, unless required by law or pursuant to a valid judicial warrant or court order. Washtenaw County Sheriff Alyshia Dyer publicly stated that many local police want no part of 287(g) agreements and that such agreements threaten the trust local law enforcement has spent decades building.

Oakland County

Oakland County presents a more complicated picture. Oakland County Sheriff Michael Bouchard denied reports that his deputies had been assisting ICE enforcement operations in Pontiac, pushing back on claims by the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center. Community observers have been independently documenting ICE activity in Oakland County since June 2025, tracking enforcement operations by documenting vehicles, personnel, and locations. The factual picture of what Oakland County deputies are or are not doing in cooperation with ICE has been publicly disputed and should be verified through current reporting.

Senate Bills 508, 509, and 510 - Pending as of June 2026

A package of three bills introduced by Senate Democrats in August 2025 represents the most significant state-level legislative response to ICE enforcement in Michigan. Senate Bill 508 would restrict immigration enforcement at sensitive locations, including educational institutions, places of worship, hospitals, courthouses, sites of public ceremonies, and organizations providing assistance to children, pregnant women, victims of crime, or disabled individuals. Federal agents could still enter these locations under a judicial warrant or in case of imminent public danger. Senate Bill 509 would prohibit government entities from disclosing personal identifying information to immigration authorities for immigration enforcement purposes without a judicial warrant. Senate Bill 510 would require federal law enforcement officers interacting with the public to wear appropriate identification, prohibiting masked enforcement except in authorized undercover operations, and require activated body-worn cameras.

The bills passed the Senate Civil Rights, Judiciary and Public Safety Committee along party lines on March 25, 2026, and were sent to the full Senate floor. As of June 2026, their final passage by both chambers and signature by Gov. Gretchen Whitmer was not confirmed. Families should verify current status with the ACLU of Michigan at aclumich.org or the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center at michiganimmigrant.org before relying on any of these provisions.

Republican opposition to the bills was significant. Sen. Jim Runestad challenged the premise of the legislation, and a mandatory 287(g) enforcement bill (SB 43) introduced by Senate Republicans would have required local agencies to participate in ICE jail enforcement and warrant service programs. As of June 2026, SB 43 had not been enacted. The divided chamber dynamics mean both the protective bills and the enforcement bills face obstacles, leaving Michigan without state law on either side.

ICE Enforcement Operations in Michigan - 2025-2026

ICE arrests in Michigan nearly tripled from 2024 levels through October 2025, according to the Deportation Data Project. Enforcement operations have been documented across the state, including in the southeast Michigan suburbs, western Michigan agricultural communities (Holland, Kalamazoo, Grand Rapids), and northern Michigan counties.

The Allston Car Wash operation on November 4, 2025, in which masked ICE agents arrived in unmarked vehicles at a Detroit-area car wash and detained nine employees, including three from the same family, was one of the more publicly visible operations and prompted significant community response. Detroit Council member Gabriela Santiago-Romero reported that one Detroit school had seen a 50 percent decline in attendance in the year prior, attributed in part to fear of enforcement. The masking and lack of visible identification in some operations is one of the specific concerns driving SB 510.

ICE has also maintained an active presence in western Michigan, where the agricultural and food processing sectors employ significant immigrant workforces. Allegan and Barry counties, both with 287(g) agreements, are in this corridor.

A detainee died in ICE custody in Michigan in December 2025, prompting state lawmakers to seek answers about conditions in federal facilities holding Michigan detainees. The incident underscored the stakes of detention policy and the importance of the ICE Detainee Locator and immediate legal contact for families of detained individuals.

Part 3: How State and Federal Law Interact in Michigan

Michigan's legal framework is defined by its absence of state statute on either side. Without a sanctuary law, local agencies face no state-level prohibition on cooperation with ICE. Without a mandatory cooperation law, they face no state-level requirement to cooperate. The result is that federal law, specifically the Tenth Amendment's voluntary cooperation framework, is the operative legal standard: agencies can choose, and each has.

The patchwork this produces is real and consequential. A person arrested in Detroit will be in a city that will not call ICE. The same person arrested in Taylor, a few miles away, will be in a city whose police department has a Task Force agreement that specifically authorizes making immigration arrests during routine stops. A person booked into the Washtenaw County Jail will be in a facility whose county board has formally resolved not to allow ICE enforcement on county property. A person booked into Calhoun County will be in a county with a 287(g) agreement.

The Sixth Circuit (which covers Michigan) has not issued a definitive ruling on civil immigration detainers and Fourth Amendment liability, but the general trend of circuit court decisions nationally holds that honoring a detainer without a judicial warrant may expose agencies to constitutional liability. Michigan agencies honoring detainers do so at their own legal risk.

Arizona v. United States (2012) is the outer framework. Michigan agencies cooperating with ICE through voluntary 287(g) agreements are operating within the Arizona framework: voluntary cooperation is constitutionally permissible. Mandatory state-imposed cooperation, if enacted by the Republican bills, would raise anti-commandeering questions. That legislation has not passed.

Part 4: What This Means for Families on the Ground

For immigrant families in Michigan, your county and city of residence is one of the most important factors in your enforcement risk. The map is not uniform, and it matters enormously whether you are in Detroit, Dearborn, or Ann Arbor versus Taylor, Calhoun County, or Macomb County.

In counties with 287(g) Jail Enforcement Model agreements, any arrest that leads to a county jail booking can trigger immigration screening and a detainer hold. In counties with Task Force agreements like Taylor, immigration arrests can happen during routine traffic stops, not only at the jail. Families in Berrien, Calhoun, Crawford, Genesee, Jackson, and Roscommon counties should understand this elevated risk.

In Detroit, Dearborn, and Ann Arbor, local police have explicitly stated they do not cooperate with immigration enforcement. This provides meaningful local protection. But ICE can and does operate in these cities under its own authority without local police involvement. The city police not calling ICE does not mean ICE is not present.

Macomb County's informal cooperation posture, where the sheriff has stated deputies will contact CBP at traffic stops for people identified as undocumented, means that a traffic stop in Macomb County creates immigration risk even without a formal 287(g) agreement.

Western Michigan's agricultural corridor, including Holland, Muskegon, Kalamazoo, and surrounding communities, has significant immigrant workforces in farming and food processing. Allegan and Barry counties have 287(g) agreements, and ICE has been active in this region. Families in those communities should know the specific enforcement posture of their county.

The sensitive locations bills, SB 508-510, are not yet law. Schools, hospitals, courthouses, and places of worship in Michigan do not have binding state-law protection from ICE civil enforcement. Families should encourage their children's schools and healthcare providers to adopt internal policies, and should know their own constitutional rights in those settings.

The ICE masking practice documented in the November 2025 car wash operation and other Michigan enforcement actions means families may not immediately know they are interacting with a law enforcement officer. Under your constitutional rights, you can ask if the person is a law enforcement officer, ask to see identification, and state that you do not consent to being detained if you have not been told why.

Part 5: What You Can Actually Do

If ICE Comes to Your Home

Do not open the door. ICE cannot legally enter a home without a judicial warrant signed by a judge. An ICE administrative warrant, Form I-200 or Form I-205, is signed by an immigration officer, not a judge, and does not give ICE the right to enter your home. Ask through the closed door whether the warrant is signed by a judge. If it is not, you may say clearly that you do not consent to entry.

You have the right to remain silent. You are not required to answer questions about your birthplace, how you entered the country, or your immigration status. Say: 'I am exercising my right to remain silent. I want to speak with a lawyer.' This applies regardless of immigration status.

Do not sign anything without speaking with an immigration attorney. Signing voluntary departure forms or other removal documents can permanently waive important legal rights.

If stopped in public, stay calm. Do not run. Do not physically resist. State that you are exercising your right to remain silent and want a lawyer. Ask if you are free to go. If yes, leave calmly. If masked individuals approach you in an unmarked vehicle and do not identify themselves as law enforcement, you may ask: 'Are you law enforcement? Can I see your identification?'

If a Family Member Is Detained

Use the ICE Online Detainee Locator at locator.ice.gov immediately. You will need the person's country of birth and either their full name and date of birth or their A-Number (Alien Registration Number). Michigan detainees have been transferred to facilities in other states. Locating your family member quickly is critical given documented December 2025 concerns about in-custody conditions.

Call the ICE Detention Reporting and Information Line: 1-888-351-4024.

Call the EOIR Immigration Court Information Line: 1-800-898-7180.

Contact the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center: michiganimmigrant.org. MIRC provides legal services, a detained immigrant information line, and has been tracking ICE activity across Michigan.

Contact the ACLU of Michigan: aclumich.org.

Know the Risk Points in Michigan

County of residence is the primary risk variable. Berrien, Calhoun, Crawford, Genesee, Jackson, and Roscommon counties have 287(g) agreements. Taylor has a Task Force agreement. Macomb County has an informal cooperation posture. Detroit, Dearborn, Ann Arbor, and Washtenaw County have non-cooperation postures.

Any jail booking in a 287(g) county can trigger immigration screening and a detainer. A traffic stop in Taylor or Macomb County creates risk even before a jail booking.

Western Michigan's agricultural corridor faces elevated enforcement risk from ICE operations targeting farm and food processing workplaces.

Masked federal enforcement operations have occurred in Michigan, including in the Detroit metro area. You have the right to ask for identification and to remain silent.

Sensitive locations are not protected under state law as of June 2026. Verify whether the protective bills have been signed before relying on school or hospital protection.

Part 6: Legal Resources in Michigan

Michigan Immigrant Rights Center: michiganimmigrant.org. MIRC is Michigan's primary immigration legal services organization, with a detained immigrant information line and tracking of ICE activity statewide.

ACLU of Michigan: aclumich.org. The ACLU of Michigan has issued updated guidance to local law enforcement agencies, filed public records requests to document ICE activity, and supports the protective bill package.

Arab American Civil Rights League (ACRL): arabamericancivilrights.org. The ACRL focuses on civil rights for Arab-American and Muslim communities in the Detroit area and has resources specific to those communities.

Immigration Advocates Network: immigrationadvocates.org. The national legal aid finder allows searching by state and county.

National Immigrant Justice Center (Chicago): immigrantjustice.org.

EOIR Immigration Court Information Line: 1-800-898-7180.

ICE Detainee Locator: locator.ice.gov.

ICE Detention Reporting and Information Line: 1-888-351-4024.

Summary

Michigan has no statewide sanctuary law and no statewide mandatory cooperation law. The enforcement picture is a county-by-county patchwork, among the most fragmented in the series. At least seven agencies have 287(g) agreements as of June 2026: Berrien, Calhoun, Crawford, Genesee, Jackson, and Roscommon counties, plus the city of Taylor. Macomb County has an informal cooperation posture. Detroit, Dearborn, Ann Arbor, and Washtenaw County have non-cooperation postures. ICE arrests in Michigan nearly tripled from 2024 to October 2025. Senate Bills 508, 509, and 510, which would restrict ICE at sensitive locations, limit data sharing, and require officer identification, passed committee in March 2026 but their full enactment as of June 2026 requires verification with the ACLU of Michigan or Michigan Immigrant Rights Center.

For families in Michigan, your county and city of residence is the most important enforcement variable. Know whether your county has a 287(g) agreement, know your local police department's stated posture, and have a family preparedness plan. Know your rights at the door (no judicial warrant, no entry), exercise the right to remain silent, and use the ICE Detainee Locator immediately if a family member is detained. Contact MIRC or the ACLU of Michigan for current legal guidance.

Sources and verification: Michigan Advance, 'Michigan Civil Rights Groups Push Back on ICE Partnerships,' September 30, 2025; Michigan Advance, 'Michigan Senate Bills Would Address Unchecked Immigration Enforcement,' February 5, 2026; Michigan Advance, 'Bills to Limit Federal Immigration Actions Move to Full Michigan Senate Along Party Lines,' March 25-26, 2026; Spartan Newsroom (Capital News Service), 'Lawmakers Propose Curbs on ICE Activity,' February 23, 2026; Detroit News, 'As ICE Surges, Local Law Enforcement Grapple with Immigration Policies,' February 19-23, 2026; ACLU of Michigan poll (YouGov, January 28-February 3, 2026); Eastern Echo, 'Michigan, Ann Arbor, Ypsilanti Officials Work to Limit Immigration Enforcement Agents,' January 23, 2026; Michigan Advance, 'Lawmakers Seek Answers After Detainee Dies in ICE Custody in Michigan,' December 23, 2025; SB 508, SB 509, SB 510 bill text (legislature.mi.gov); SB 43 (mandatory 287g, Senate Republican bill); Deportation Data Project ICE arrests data (Michigan, 2024-October 2025); Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012); Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997). Volatile items requiring verification: Final enacted status of SB 508, SB 509, SB 510 (advanced to full Senate floor as of March 2026; verify at aclumich.org or michiganimmigrant.org); current list of Michigan 287(g) agencies (growing, verify at ice.gov); Oakland County enforcement posture (disputed, monitor through local reporting). Last verified: June 2026.