IVN is joined by Nate Allen, founder and Executive Director of Utah Approves, to discuss Approval Voting and his perspective on changing the incentives of our elections.
Podcast: Seeking approval in Utah
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
The latest shutdown deal kept government open while exposing Congress’s reliance on procedural oversight rather than structural limits on ICE.
Getty Images, Douglas Rissing
Where Can Immigration Enforcement Take Place?
Jul 18, 2026
This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.
The Origins: The Clinton Administration
“Sensitive area” policies originate from the Clinton administration. Also known as a “Protected Area”, a “sensitive area” refers to any building or region where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is required to refrain from immigration enforcement actions.
This policy originated in 1993 as a memo from James A. Puleo, the acting associate commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), an agency under the U.S Department of Justice. Under Puleo, immigration enforcement officers were to “attempt to avoid apprehension of persons and tightly control investigative operations” within areas like schools and places of worship. Additionally, enforcement actions in these “sensitive areas” required advance written approval from senior officials.
While Puelo’s memo did not outright ban enforcement action at sensitive areas, additional precaution and approval were required to conduct such activity, limiting officer autonomy and operational flow. However, exceptions could be made in emergency situations, such as “a mass alien influx or alien registration action”.
The Age of Expansion: The Bush Administration
The Bush administration ultimately upheld Puleo’s 1993 memo. Three memos form the cornerstones of the administration’s sensitive areas policy: Byers’ 2008 Field Guidance on Enforcement Actions or Investigative Activities At or Near Sensitive Community Locations, ICE’s 2007 Guidelines for Identifying Humanitarian Concerns among Administrative Arrestees, and Forman’s 2007 Enforcement Actions at Schools.
As a response to the events of 9/11, the Homeland Security Act of 2003 was enacted, restructuring the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security. Ultimately, this move dissolved the INS and created ICE. Under the Act, ICE’s primary mission is to “promote homeland security and public safety through the criminal and civil enforcement of federal laws governing border control, customs, trade and immigration”. The sensitive areas policy established by the INS were maintained by ICE, and the agency released several memos clarifying the policy.
On November 16, 2007, ICE published Guidelines for Identifying Humanitarian Concerns among Administrative Arrestees. The document served as a guide for collaboration between ICE agents and social service agencies to prioritize safe and human conditions. Obligations include: (1) identifying vulnerable individuals early, such as sole caregivers, pregnant women, or individuals with medical conditions; (2) screening arrestees for medical needs; (3) providing access to restrooms and adequate food or water; (4) notifying arrestees of opportunities for legal counsel; and (5) allowing family contact through free telephone service.
In addition to addressing humanitarian concerns, Office of Investigation Director Marcy M. Forman released Enforcement Actions at Schools on December 26, 2007, a memorandum promoting careful ICE operations on grounds where children may be present. Officers were instructed to use “great care and forethought” in such areas, especially schools. Additionally, before ICE detains or questions individuals, they are obligated to notify the Headquarters Operations Manager, get approval from the highest-ranking regional official, known as the Special Agent in Charge, and write a request memo that allows ICE to use administrative warrants rather than judicial warrants to conduct operations. This approval does not apply when ICE agents ask schools for records and information from school officials, or conduct other non-enforcement-related activities. Finally, the memo preserved exceptions given to concerns involving terrorism or other public safety issues.
The final memo during Bush’s term, addressed to ICE from Assistant Secretary Julie M. Byers, was published on July 3, 2008. The memo officially recognized Forman’s and Puelo’s memos, codifying sensitive area protections into ICE operations. Byers’ memo came nearly two months after a controversial raid at a meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa on May 12, 2008. The Attorney’s Office in the Northern District of Iowa charged 306 of the 389 arrestees with false identification and 270 with aggravated identity theft. Critics contend that the defendants were not given sufficient time to meet with counsel, translation services, nor individual court proceedings established by Forman’s or Puleo’s memo.
The Bush Administration did not significantly break from Clinton-era precedent and preserved many of the same exceptions for immigration enforcement in sensitive locations.
The Morton Memo: The Obama Administration
The Obama administration’s view on sensitive areas was defined by ICE Director John Morton’s Policy Memorandum 10029.2. Dubbed the “Morton Memo,” it outright prohibited ICE officers from entering or conducting arrests, searches, or surveillance near designated protected sites. Protected sites included: K-12 schools, universities, school bus stops, medical treatment facilities, places of worship, and public demonstrations. Exceptions were narrowly provided in cases of active pursuits, imminent destruction of evidence, and national security investigations.
The Morton memo represents the Obama administration’s leniency towards long-term residents and children, further evidenced by the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program. Obama’s policy has allowed over 740,000 undocumented individuals who arrived as children to remain in the United States, granting them renewed work authorizations. In contrast, the Obama administration would also expeditiously deport adults with a criminal record, resulting in the highest deportation rates of any previous president. This policy represented a major departure from previous administrations, marking a more politically and legally contested approach to immigration.
Obama-era policy left a legacy of the most comprehensive federal codification of enforcement restraint at community institutions in U.S. history. Morton’s memo was ultimately a tool designed to decouple aggressive interior enforcement from the community trust infrastructure in schools, hospitals, churches, etc., which was seen as a necessity for “social order.”
Challenging the Status Quo: The First Trump Administration
Coming into office in January 2017, the Trump Administration marked a significant departure from the enforcement priorities of the Obama era, including the guidelines established in the Morton memo. Rather than narrowing deportation to individuals with serious criminal records, the Administration moved to expand interior enforcement to target undocumented immigrants broadly. This shift was formalized through two executive orders signed in the first week of office: Border Security and Immigration Enforcement Improvements (EO 13767) and Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States (EO 13768), which directed ICE to treat nearly all undocumented individuals as enforcement priorities and rescinded the Obama-era guidance that had narrowed those priorities.
On February 20, 2017, DHS Secretary John Kelly issued a memo titled Enforcement of the Immigration Laws to Serve the National Interest, which immediately rescinded Obama’s Priority Enforcement Program and gave officers broad authority to pursue removal against anyone who had committed acts constituting a chargeable criminal offense, including minor traffic infractions. While the Administration did not formally rescind the Morton Memo, it effectively eroded the sensitive areas framework through these broadened enforcement priorities and rhetoric that de-emphasized restrictions near schools, churches, and hospitals.
The consequences for immigrant communities were significant. A 2018 study from the University of Michigan School of Public Health found that Detroit-area ICE detentions rose 44 percent from 2016 to 2017, with more than triple the number of non-criminal immigrants detained, and documented immigrants avoiding doctors, grocery stores, and schools out of fear. The Urban Institute (2019) also found that 1 in 5 adults in immigrant families with children reported avoiding public benefits out of fear of immigration consequences, rising to 1 in 3 among low-income families. Lastly, a 2023 PMC study published in PMC found that direct enforcement encounters among Asian and Latinx immigrants were associated with delayed healthcare access, even when sensitive location protections were technically still in place on paper.
While Trump’s first term did not fully dismantle the sensitive locations framework, its expansive enforcement priorities and aggressive interior operations functionally weakened it. The rise in non-criminal arrests reflected a deliberate departure from the Obama-era framing of prioritizing felons over families, and the cultural shift within ICE laid the groundwork for the full rescission of sensitive area protections that would come in his second term.
The Restoration Administration: The Biden Administration
The Biden Administration entered office in January 2021 with a stated commitment to reversing many of the Trump-era immigration policies, including the restoration of sensitive areas policies. The Biden Administration both restored and expanded the protections that had been culturally eroded under Trump I.
In January 2021, Acting ICE Director Tae Johnson issued a memo pausing most interior enforcement as the administration developed its new priorities. Then, on October 27, 2021, DHS Secretary Mayorkas issued Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas, a new unified policy for both ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that replaced and expanded upon the Obama-era Morton Memo. The updated guidelines broadened the list of protected locations to include disaster relief and emergency sites, food banks, homeless shelters, community centers, places where children gather, and medical and mental health facilities including vaccine and testing sites. The memo also maintained the requirement for pre-approval before enforcement near any protected area and was grounded in the principle that enforcement should not deter people from accessing essential services. Per American Immigration Council analysis, the 2021 memo narrowed officers’ enforcement latitude more than any prior guidance, adding new protections and closing loopholes that had existed in previous iterations, including eliminating a CBP exception for areas near the international border that had previously left border-community hospitals and schools largely unprotected.
The Biden administration’s approach represented both a formal restoration and the most expansive codification of sensitive area protections in the policy’s long history. However, the 2021 Guidelines for Enforcement Actions in or Near Protected Areas would ultimately become the final formal iteration of the sensitive locations framework.
The State of Sensitive Areas Today: The Second Trump Administration
On January 20th, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14159, which directed DHS to revoke all previous guidance for immigration enforcement. The order removed the sensitive areas policy while it was still in effect, with DHS Secretary Benjamine Huffman rescinding Biden-era precedent shortly after. On January 31, 2024, ICE issued a follow-up memorandum establishing that authorization for formerly protected areas could be granted verbally or in writing. However, ICE did not explicitly mention that authorization is required, nor did the agency list consequences for failing to receive authorization. As a result, the Executive Order granted agents greater authority over the methods they use to conduct patrols, arrests, and raids.
The removal of the sensitive areas policy causes schools and children to be more vulnerable to arrest, removal, or questioning by ICE. According to NBR, raids coincided with a 22% increase in daily student absences, with younger students more absent than older students. A separate source, Edweek, conducted a national survey which found that 24% of educators who worked with immigrant families reported reduced student attendance. Trump’s retraction of the sensitive areas framework has left 9 million students with at least one noncitizen adult at risk of being affected by arrests.
Critics of Trump’s immigration policies cite the conflict between the Emergency Medical Treatment and Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires physicians to provide care regardless of a patient’s citizenship status. Likewise, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) mandates healthcare professionals to keep sensitive client information – such as citizenship – private from all entities. However, no existing statute prohibits ICE from entering public areas within hospitals in certain states. The Trump administration has not confirmed arrests inside hospitals or medical facilities as of April 2026.
Democratic legislators have opted to keep the sensitive areas policy alive despite the Trump administration’s opposing views. At the federal level, Representative Adriano Espaillat (NY-13) and Senator Richard Blumenthal (CT) reintroduced the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act on February 6, 2025 to re-codify restrictions on ICE and other DHS departments. The Act seeks to codify protections similar to the former policy by restricting immigration enforcement within 1,000 feet of designated sensitive locations, including schools, hospitals, places of worship, polling sites, and labor union facilities. If enacted, the legislation would significantly limit where enforcement actions can occur and reestablish clearer boundaries for federal authorities.
How Is the Rescission of the Sensitive Locations Policy Currently Impacting Communities?
The rescission of the Sensitive Locations policy has significantly expanded immigration enforcement authority, allowing ICE agents to conduct enforcement actions in locations that were previously protected, including schools, healthcare facilities, places of worship, and other community institutions. The change has prompted institutions of higher education to assess how to respond to potential enforcement activity and raising concerns about student safety and institutional policies governing federal access. Overall, federal officials argue that removing the policy restores law enforcement flexibility and prevents individuals from avoiding arrest by remaining in these locations.
At the same time, advocacy organizations report that the policy change has contributed to heightened fear among immigrant communities, particularly in spaces where individuals previously felt safe accessing essential services. Early evidence suggests declines in school attendance and increased missed medical appointments, indicating a broader chilling effect. This shift may discourage immigrants, including some U.S. citizen children in mixed-status families, from seeking medical care, attending school, participating in religious services, or accessing disaster relief and other social support. The policy also increases risks for particularly vulnerable populations, such as youth experiencing homelessness who may lack identification or documentation, as well as individuals relying on shelters, clinics, or other community-based services, all of whom may face a greater likelihood of detention during enforcement actions.
In response, schools, healthcare providers, and religious organizations are assessing how immigration enforcement may affect their communities and institutional practices. Local governments and community organizations have also begun providing “know your rights” information to help individuals better understand their legal protections when interacting with immigration authorities.
What Are the Future Implications of Rescinding the Sensitive Locations Policy?
Ongoing legal challenges to the rescission of the Sensitive Locations Policy suggest that its long-term implementation remains uncertain. Multiple lawsuits have been filed, and courts have issued mixed rulings, with one federal judge temporarily blocking immigration enforcement actions in certain houses of worship. Another declined to restrict enforcement in school settings. As litigation continues, future court decisions will play a critical role in determining whether aspects of the policy are upheld, limited, or reversed.
In the absence of uniform federal protections, states are increasingly exploring their own policy responses, despite immigration enforcement remaining primarily a federal responsibility. States such as Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Washington, and West Virginia have either implemented or explored policies that limit enforcement in sensitive spaces, including proposals requiring federal immigration officers to obtain judicial warrants or demonstrate probable cause before conducting certain enforcement actions. In addition, some state and local governments are pursuing policies that limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities or restrict immigration enforcement on state-controlled property. For example, proposals introduced by officials such as Kathy Hochul aim to prevent local police from assisting with federal immigration enforcement, while advocacy efforts have also promoted the creation of “ICE-free zones” in certain public spaces.
Looking ahead, the removal of sensitive location protections may have broader, long-term implications for public institutions and community trust. Continued fear of enforcement may discourage immigrant communities from engaging with essential services, potentially leading to lower school attendance, delayed medical treatment, and reduced participation in civic and religious life. Over time, these patterns could have significant consequences for public health outcomes, access to education, and overall trust in government institutions, particularly among the immigrant population.
Where Can Immigration Enforcement Take Place?: Unpacking ICE’s ‘Sensitive Areas’ Policies from Clinton to Trump was first published by ACE and republished with permission.
Nhelia Alemo, Chloe Durham, Mariam Nageeb, Stephanie Olvido, Yazmin Muñiz, Kallista Ramirez, and Jaiden Whitner are ACE Fellows.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
U.S. forces patrol the Arabian Sea near M/V Touska on April 20, 2026, after firing upon the Iranian-flagged vessel that the U.S. accused of attempting to violate the U.S. naval blockade of Iranian ports near the Strait of Hormuz.
(U.S. Navy/Getty Images/TNS)
The Iran war could shape American policy for decades
Jul 17, 2026
The war with Iran that never really ended is back on. Like everybody else, including the Trump administration and the Iranian regime, I have no idea how it will end. But it eventually will, and how it will be remembered will matter enormously.
Politics is about many things, but whether you call it “spin,” “framing” or “narrative competition,” storytelling is never far from the heart of it. As the philosopher Richard Rorty observed, “Competition for political leadership is in part a competition between differing stories about a nation’s self-identity, and between differing symbols of its greatness.”
Sometimes the story itself is the point, like the recent clashes over the American founding — 1619 vs. 1776 — and sometimes the story is a means to some other political end, like winning an election or passing controversial legislation. If people believe the spin that elections are routinely stolen thanks to votes by illegal immigrants, then passing the SAVE Act makes sense. If they don’t believe that story — perhaps because it’s not true — but do believe that the bill is another chapter in the story of President Trump’s goal of undermining confidence in elections, then passing it doesn’t make sense.
Very often the story is more lastingly important than the facts.
Take the New Deal. Save for the Founding and the Civil War, I’m hard-pressed to think of a story that shaped American politics more. The modern Democratic Party was defined by it. And in many ways, so was the GOP.
For decades, the reigning view was that President Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal was a huge success. To deny this was — and often still is — dismissed as nuttery. According to legend, the New Deal unified the country, defeated the Great Depression and proved that politicians and experts could plan the economy for the benefit of all Americans. Hence the unceasing progressive quest for a “new New Deal.”
This story has facts in its favor. It also has facts heavily weighted against it. The economy didn’t really recover until well after the New Deal was over. The 1930s was no period of “we’re all in together” unity. Instead it was a time of significant domestic upheaval: the Harlem Riots and labor unrest — “the Uprising of 1934” alone was one the largest industrial strikes in American history — and hundreds of unemployment protests.
Nor was the New Deal a coherent, uniformly successful plan. FDR made stuff up as he went.
“To look upon these programs as the result of a unified plan,” wrote Raymond Moley, FDR’s right-hand man during much of the New Deal, “was to believe that the accumulation of stuffed snakes, baseball pictures, school flags, old tennis shoes, carpenter’s tools, geometry books, and chemistry sets in a boy’s bedroom could have been put there by an interior decorator.”
In 1940, when Alvin Hansen, an economic adviser to FDR, was asked if the principle of the New Deal was “economically sound,” Hansen replied, “I really do not know what the basic principle of the New Deal is.”
My aim isn’t to relitigate a very lost cause, but simply to note that the triumphant narrative of the New Deal swamped all others, and shaped domestic politics and policy for generations.
Which brings me, finally, to the war. I think it’s obvious that once Trump realized his little war in Iran wasn’t going to repeat the “success” of his little war in Venezuela, he had no idea or plan for what to do next. He’s been improvising ever since. His strategy looks more like the boy’s messy bedroom Moley described than a successful work of interior design.
But what if the war ends successfully? A lot of the president’s critics assume that’s impossible. They shouldn’t. It’s true that Trump misread the Iranians, but that doesn’t mean the Iranians aren’t misreading Trump. Indeed, hostilities resumed last week precisely because the Iranians got greedy, launching fresh attacks in the Strait of Hormuz.
The Iranian regime could still fall. Europe, fed up with the chaos and disruption, could get over its well-earned frustration with Trump and join the fray, helping to secure the strait. I’m not saying this is likely, just that it is quite possible.
What then? You can be sure people will have very different stories to tell about this war. Many opponents of “forever wars,” on the left and right, will still pronounce it a failure no matter what. Some supporters will argue that Trump merely lucked out. Many others will claim this was the “chess master’s” plan all along.
Some story will prevail, and that story — accurate or not — will shape American foreign policy for years to come.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.
Keep ReadingShow less
An oil production operation is shown in North Dakota. With the U.S. Supreme Court granting more presidential powers to the executive branch, environmental groups warned key agencies will have a harder time going after polluters.
(Adobe Stock)
Presidential powers: Corporate abuses big concern after SCOTUS move
Jul 13, 2026
A U.S. Supreme Court opinion issued last month expands presidential power over independent federal agencies, prompting warnings from environmental advocates about potential implications for states such as North Dakota.
The court’s conservative majority said President Donald Trump had the authority to fire a former Federal Trade Commission member without cause. Legal observers countered the opinion nullifies longstanding precedent involving the role of Congress in insulating certain federal agency officials from direct presidential control.
Doug Lindner, senior director of judiciary and democracy for the League of Conservation Voters, said he worries the decision weakens checks and balances and shifts more power to corporations.
“So many agencies across the government are created by Congress for the purpose of reining in big business and ensuring that it’s accountable to the law and accountable when it does things to the people that it shouldn’t be able to do,” Lindner explained.
Lindner worries the ruling could increase political pressure within the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. He added in North Dakota, where fossil fuel infrastructure has a large presence, polluters could be held less accountable.
Supporters of the decision said it aligns with the view the president needs control over the executive branch. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, “The President must have the assistance of officers he can trust.”
Lindner argued no matter which party controls the White House, giving a president so much control is dangerous for democracy.
“The president is not supposed to have all the power — Congress is supposed to have the most power, and the president takes an oath to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed,” he emphasized.
In addition to environmental concerns, opponents of the decision warned it could lead to fewer consumer protections and more dangerous workplaces.
The court made one exception in its action on the issue. For now, it blocked the firing of Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook while she challenges the president’s move.
Presidential powers: Corporate abuses big concern after SCOTUS move was first published by Public News Service and was republished with permission.
Mike Moen is a producer with PNS.
Keep ReadingShow less
Congress should strengthen the administrative state by writing clearer laws, limiting delegated authority, and requiring periodic reauthorization of agency powers.
Photo courtesy of Luka Jacobi-Krohn
Putting the Guardrails Back on Delegations of Power
Jul 06, 2026
Congress needs to write better laws instead of dismantling the administrative state.
Debates over the administrative state focus on whether these agencies have accrued too much power. Some argue that the solution is to severely weaken or, in extreme scenarios, dismantle these federal agencies. However, the issue is not the existence of these agencies but actually how Congress writes its laws. When statutes are drafted with vague language, agencies are left to interpret the scope, and courts are forced to set the boundaries. This results in constant litigation and generally regulatory instability. If Congress actually wants a more durable and accountable regulatory system, they need to start with themselves by writing clearer laws.
Over the past century, Congress has tasked federal agencies with implementing often broad legislation to create federal rules allowing them to fill in the details. This resulted from a practical need; elected officials cannot realistically draft every single law, for instance environmental protection laws, or laws safekeeping public health.
However, in recent years, this line has become increasingly blurred, and the process has turned into more of an abdication of power instead of the proper delegation that it started with. Too often, Congress passes laws that are upheld by courts under the “intelligible principle” established in J.W. Hampton, Jr. & Co. v. United States (1928), which allows Congress to provide guiding principles for agencies to implement statutory mandates, but Congress has been using extremely broad language such as “in the public interest” or “as necessary and appropriate.” These do not clearly define the outer limits of the authority Congress is delegating. This has led to several issues, the first of which is that agencies have faced increasing litigation as courts scrutinize their actions under doctrines like the major questions doctrine, leaving agencies exposed to political blame for choices they made from unclear statutory drafting.
The solution is that Congress must put guardrails on its delegations of power. Congress should adopt a rule/law that includes two elements: a plain language statement that defines the boundaries and outer limits of the power being granted to an agency, and an automatic ten-year expiration unless Congress reauthorizes the delegation of power.
The plain language requirement would still allow for the expertise of agencies to fill in the details regarding regulations/rules, but Congress would be required to specify the scope and limit of the discretion it is transferring to the agencies. The plain language added to a bill should include essential pieces such as constraints, boundaries, or decisions the agency may make. Congress has already signaled its support for more clear government communications by passing the Plain Writing Act of 2010, which requires federal agencies use more ordinary everyday language to help everyday Americans understand the agency's public communications. Congress should hold itself to the same standard when they transfer policymaking authority.
The ten-year sunset provision forces Congress to reauthorize its delegations of power. One issue today is that authority delegated by Congress, whether to the executive or federal agencies, can be indefinite. This means that some agencies are still using authority from laws that were passed decades ago. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938 for instance, is the main source of authority for the FDA. This law was written a long time before many of the changes that have defined the 21st century like AI-powered medical devices yet the FDA is forced to interpret and apply that nearly century-old language to regulate them. A sunset provision would fix this by requiring Congress to periodically assess whether the delegation of power to an agency remains appropriate or needs to be modified. It doesn't mean agencies would cease all operations if it isn't passed or renewed, just that a certain authority delegated by Congress for a specific function may cease.
These reforms would make it more difficult for courts to strike down regulations/rules made by agencies such as environmental protection or health rules because Congress wasn't clear where its delegation of authority ends or starts. When Congress defines the boundaries of its delegation in clear, simple, plain language, agencies will be less at risk of facing litigation regarding their rules.
Congress can strengthen, not dismantle the administrative state by reclaiming its constitutionally given authority to write the laws and define the scope of the authority it delegates. By putting guardrails back on its delegations of power, Congress will make the federal government more accountable, more transparent, and most importantly, more durable.
Luka Jacobi-Krohn is a political science student at the University of Pennsylvania. He spent the last semester as a domestic intern at Penn Washington, where he studied and wrote about federal agencies, Congress, policymaking, and their intersections.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More