New Jersey Bars ICE from State Property Under Executive Order No. 12

New Jersey Executive Order No. 12: What it does and how it works in practice (as of Feb. 12, 2026)

Executive Order No. 12 (EO No. 12) is a New Jersey executive-branch access rule for state property. It is designed for state agencies and their staff, and it also matters to patients, visitors, and service providers who use state facilities, including healthcare-related sites that are state-operated or state-controlled.

Signed by Governor Mikie Sherrill on February 11, 2026, EO No. 12 bars ICE from entering, accessing, or using nonpublic areas of state property for immigration enforcement operations unless ICE has a judicial warrant signed by a state or federal judge. Public areas of state property remain accessible to federal agents as visitors.

The public/nonpublic distinction is the centerpiece. Many immigration encounters turn on whether ICE is seeking entry to an employee-only workspace, a secured back area, or another restricted zone.

1) Overview of Executive Order No. 12

EO No. 12 restricts immigration enforcement activity on nonpublic areas of state property. Nonpublic areas generally mean spaces not open to the general public, such as staff workspaces, secured offices, badge-access corridors, and employee-only zones.

The core operational rule is straightforward: ICE may not enter or use nonpublic state-controlled space for immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant. The order also states that public areas on state property remain open to federal agents in the same way they are open to other visitors.

This is not an immigration “status” program. It does not grant protection from removal. It primarily governs access to space controlled by the state executive branch.

2) Scope and applicability: who must follow it, where it applies, and what it does not do

EO No. 12 applies to New Jersey executive branch departments and agencies. It does not bind local governments by itself. It also does not directly control federal enforcement choices.

In practice, the order functions like an access-control and facilities protocol. Agencies typically implement it through reception screening, security posts, staff training, and designated points of contact for law enforcement requests.

A major decision point is the type of “warrant” presented. EO No. 12 requires a judicial warrant for nonpublic entry. In immigration practice, ICE often uses administrative forms, which are not signed by judges. Common examples include:

• Form I-200 (Warrant for Arrest of Alien)
• Form I-205 (Warrant of Removal/Deportation)

Those are administrative warrants. They may support certain federal actions, but they are not judicial warrants. EO No. 12’s access rule turns on that difference.

The decision checklist summarized in the on-page tool captures the key branching questions. It focuses on whether the area is public or nonpublic, and whether a judicial warrant is presented.

Warning: Do not assume an “ICE warrant” is a judge-signed warrant. Ask whether it is signed by a state or federal judge. Administrative immigration warrants are typically signed by ICE supervisors, not judges.

Federal authority in this area is complex. ICE arrests and questioning authority is rooted in statutes including INA § 287 and regulations such as 8 C.F.R. § 287.8 (standards for immigration officers’ conduct). Fourth Amendment limits may apply in some contexts. Suppression rules are narrower in immigration proceedings. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032 (1984).

3) Related state policies and historical context: the Immigrant Trust Directive

EO No. 12 fits into New Jersey’s longer approach of separating community safety policing from federal civil immigration enforcement.

A key policy is the Immigrant Trust Directive issued in November 2018 by then–Attorney General Gurbir Grewal. In general terms, it limits state and local law enforcement participation in federal immigration raids and limits immigration-status inquiries, except in specified circumstances.

New Jersey policies have also limited cooperation with ICE in jail and law-enforcement settings, except in certain serious-crime situations or where a final order of removal is involved, depending on the policy provision.

These frameworks are often implemented through training, written procedures, and internal compliance oversight. Practical results can vary by agency setting and staffing.

4) Recent legislative developments (2026) and how laws interact with executive orders

On January 12, 2026, the New Jersey Legislature passed an immigrant protections package that was sent to Governor Phil Murphy before Governor Sherrill took office. The package aimed to strengthen limits on state and local cooperation with ICE, including ending some collaboration based solely on a final removal order.

Executive orders generally bind the executive branch. Legislation, if enacted, can be more durable and can sometimes reach beyond the executive branch. It can also create enforcement mechanisms and clearer remedies.

Advocates have framed the 2026 package as supporting family unity. For example, First Friends of New Jersey and New York’s leadership described the bills as helping keep families together.

Deadline watch: If implementing guidance or agency directives are issued under EO No. 12, effective dates and training deadlines may matter. Check official New Jersey announcements and agency bulletins promptly.

5) Reporting and support tools: how to document and submit information safely

New Jersey has paired EO No. 12 with reporting and public-information tools.

The Attorney General’s Office has a portal that allows residents to submit photos or videos of ICE interactions to help track operations. The materials are not publicly disclosed, according to the state. The Sherrill Administration also launched a state “Know Your Rights” website.

The resource list summarized in the on-page tool describes each resource and what users should prepare. At a practical level, useful documentation typically includes:

• Date and time
• Exact location and whether the space was public or nonpublic
• Names, badge numbers, or agency identifiers if visible
• Whether a judicial warrant was shown, and by whom it was signed
• Names and contact information for witnesses who consent to share it
• Original files preserved in their original format

Privacy and safety should guide any recording. Avoid obstructing officers or interfering with operations. Keep originals and store them securely.

Warning: Recording is risky in fast-moving encounters. Prioritize safety first. Do not physically block officers. Do not trespass into restricted areas to get video.

Step-by-step process: what to do when ICE is present at, or requesting access to, New Jersey state property

This process is written for (1) state employees and contractors, and (2) members of the public who witness activity at state facilities.

1) Identify where you are: public vs. nonpublic space

Documents to gather: facility signage, badge-access indicators, posted visitor rules, photos of entry restrictions if safe.

Decision point: EO No. 12’s strongest protections apply to nonpublic areas.

2) Determine what ICE is requesting

Documents to gather: any paperwork ICE offers to show, business cards, the name of the lead agent, and the agency they claim.

Decision point: Are they asking to enter a nonpublic area, use space, or stage an operation?

3) Ask whether there is a judicial warrant

Documents to request or record: a copy or clear photo of the warrant, the judge’s signature block, date, and address listed.

Common mistake: treating Form I-200 or Form I-205 as a judicial warrant. They are usually not.

4) Follow agency contact procedures and escalate quickly

Documents to use: internal facility protocols, supervisor contact list, security desk logs, and incident report forms used by that agency.

Typical timeline: escalation should happen immediately, because access decisions occur in minutes.

5) If you are an individual targeted by ICE, protect your rights and contact counsel

Documents to have ready: government-issued ID if available, immigration documents, and an attorney contact sheet.

In many cases, individuals may choose to remain silent. In removal proceedings, the government must prove removability. See INA § 240(c).

Attorney help matters where there are prior orders, criminal history, or pending applications.

6) Preserve evidence without interfering

Documents and files: original videos, photos, written notes, and witness statements with consent.

Typical delays: obtaining surveillance footage can be time-limited. Request preservation promptly through counsel where possible.

7) Submit reports through official channels

Documents to submit: accurate timeline, location details, and copies of materials shown by agents.

Decision point: whether to submit anonymously depends on safety and privacy concerns.

Common mistakes that can undermine complaints or lead to avoidable harm

• Mixing up public access with nonpublic access. EO No. 12 does not bar ICE from public areas.
• Failing to verify whether a warrant is judicial.
• Posting incomplete clips online that omit key context, time, or location.
• Interfering physically, which can create criminal exposure.
• Waiting too long to preserve footage or identify witnesses.

Federal response and the legal tension

A DHS spokesperson criticized EO No. 12 as “legally illiterate” and harmful to public safety. That reaction reflects the broader friction between federal immigration enforcement authority and a state’s power to set rules for its own facilities and workforce.

As background, federal policy on enforcement practices and “sensitive locations,” including healthcare settings, has shifted across administrations. Regardless of those shifts, EO No. 12 focuses on state-controlled nonpublic space, not a blanket ban on federal presence.

Warning: EO No. 12 is not a shield against removal. It is an access rule for certain state property. Individual immigration options depend on facts, status history, and jurisdiction.

Broader New Jersey stance and what to watch next

New Jersey’s stated goal is to separate state criminal enforcement from federal civil immigration enforcement. The state has argued that this supports community trust and crime reporting.

Proposed bills in 2026, including measures described as A1400, would move further by restricting government requests for immigration status in more contexts. Readers should watch for agency implementation guidance, training materials, and whether any statutes are enacted that expand coverage beyond the executive branch.

For complex situations, consult a qualified immigration attorney. This is especially important if there is a prior removal order, criminal record, or a pending asylum or cancellation case under INA § 208 or INA § 240A.

Legal resources

• EOIR Immigration Court: justice.gov/eoir
• USCIS: uscis.gov
• AILA Lawyer Referral: aila.org/find-a-lawyer

Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about immigration law and is not legal advice. Immigration cases are highly fact-specific, and laws vary by jurisdiction. Consult a qualified immigration attorney for advice about your specific situation.