Our Work

On August 5, the State Democracy Research Initiative’s faculty co-directors, Miriam Seifter and Rob Yablon, filed an amicus brief with 5 other legal scholars in United States v. New York et al., a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal concerns whether the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution bars three provisions of New York’s Driver’s License Access and Privacy Act that seek to limit disclosure of sensitive state data for immigration enforcement purposes. The federal government sued, arguing that New York’s policies were preempted by federal law and violated the judge-made doctrine of “intergovernmental immunity.” DOJ has made similar arguments in a range of recent cases.

On July 30, SDRI Legal Director Danielle Friedman spoke with Bob Bauer on Executive Functions. They discussed state criminal statutes that could apply to federal deployment of military or ICE and examine the limits of executive authority in the context of potential federal interference ahead of the November midterms.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security has vastly expanded Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) presence across the country, extending its reach to nearly every state and major city. In response, state and local governments are increasingly looking to location-specific protections, and to property law more broadly, to address the effects of this federal presence.

This explainer aims to shed light on existing state laws criminalizing election-related misconduct and their potential application to curb improper actions by federal government officials. This explainer focuses on those provisions of state election codes that criminalize behavior that experts anticipate the federal government may engage in during the November elections in 2026. Part I describes the role of the federal government in elections, including the federal laws that prohibit certain behaviors by federal officials. Part II then explores the parallel provisions in state law, specifically noting the different types of state laws that may apply to anticipated federal activities. Part III then considers what states can do to educate officials about these laws and deter potential interference by federal actors. Finally, Part IV addresses enforcement-related issues and likely legal responses from the federal government.

On June 17, 2026, the State Democracy Research Initiative’s faculty co-directors, Miriam Seifter and Rob Yablon, filed an amicus brief with six other legal scholars in United States v. New York et al., a case before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The appeal concerns whether the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution bars New York’s “Protect Our Courts Act” and several executive orders that limit state cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

For decades, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) limited enforcement operations at so-called “sensitive locations” like courthouses, schools, or hospitals. But during both Trump Administrations, officials rescinded those guidelines. This report discusses states and localities’ ability to adopt their own state-law policies to protect “sensitive locations” from the disruption of warrantless immigration arrests.

"Politicians at all levels of government have called for reforms to deescalate tensions arising from federal immigration enforcement in their states. One common proposal is banning law enforcement officers — including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection officers — from wearing masks."

State and local governments are increasingly using property law to push back on ICE operations. This report unpacks the viability of these efforts, from banning new detention centers to barring officers from staging operations on city property.

From Portland to Minneapolis, aggressive actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents against citizens and noncitizens alike have been well documented. Many of these encounters raise grave constitutional concerns. Yet it may surprise—and alarm—many to learn that there is often no viable path to sue federal officers if they violate your constitutional rights, even egregiously.

The U.S. Justice Department has demanded states' complete, unredacted vote registration lists. States have mostly declined to provide their full, unredacted voter registration lists. This report examines the questions raised by the federal government's demands about the long-established authority of states to administer elections and the scope of the federal government’s role in the voter registration process.