OPINION: Local law enforcement know best: Let's keep duties separate

As a career law enforcement leader and practicing attorney, I have stood both on the front lines of public safety and in the courtroom where the rule of law is tested. Today, immigration enforcement is straining those boundaries as the federal government attempts to draw local police into roles that were never meant to be theirs. If this trend continues, we would weaken both public safety and the established rule of law. It is incumbent on leaders to ensure that local police remain focused on their primary mission: protecting their communities.

At the center of this work lies a simple truth: Local law enforcement professionals are trained to better understand the needs of the communities they serve. Their first duty is to protect individuals from the crimes that most directly threaten daily life, such as assaults, robberies, domestic violence and homicides.

Trust between officers and the communities they serve is the cornerstone of safer neighborhoods. That trust is jeopardized when local police officers are transformed into enforcers of a federal agenda. While collaboration with federal partners is sometimes necessary, the growing pressure to federalize local policing — often through the threat of lost funding — risks undermining the legitimacy of local law enforcement.

We must also confront today’s troubling legal reality. The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 6–3 decision in Noem v. Perdomo opened the door to racial profiling, temporarily allowing federal law enforcement agents to use race as a basis to stop and detain a citizen, including those who “… look Latino …” or speak with an accent. This ruling threatens to normalize suspicion based on appearance, not conduct. Can this standard be used by the National Guard under the guise of immigration enforcement?

The dangers of using local law enforcement for federal immigration priorities, which is primarily a federal power under the U.S. Constitution’s Naturalization and Supremacy Clause, are twofold.

First, resources are pulled from crimes that truly harm people in our neighborhoods. Second and more troubling, those in our communities who may be targeted because of how they look can lose trust in law enforcement. When victims and witnesses fear that reporting a crime could lead to profiling or deportation, they remain silent. This emboldens criminals.

History offers a sobering reminder of the dangers that can arise when the lines between local policing and federal priorities are blurred. At times, in other countries, local police have been co-opted by a federal government to enforce their political agendas rather than protect their communities. Instead of safeguarding neighbors from crime and violence, they were ordered to pursue selective federal priorities rooted in ethnicity, political beliefs or identity. In that moment, local officers ceased to be guardians of public safety and became instruments of oppression.

The lesson is clear: When local law enforcement is drawn into federal political battles, the impartiality and legitimacy of policing erode. If we allow local officers to become tools of that debate, they cease being neutral protectors of their communities and risk becoming political actors.

The coming years may well define the future of American civil rights. The central issues will not simply be crime or the economy but whether we still believe in the bedrock constitutional guarantee of equal justice under law.

The path forward is clear. Local law enforcement must remain focused on local crime, while federal agencies handle federal immigration enforcement. Mixing the two jeopardizes safety and trust, while also undermining the freedoms we claim to protect. Local leaders across the country must take decisive steps through the legal process to ensure our police remain focused on their core mission — protecting and serving our communities.