San Francisco supervisors approve ICE Free Zones ordinance restricting federal immigration enforcement operations on city property

Unanimous vote expands city’s approach beyond long-standing sanctuary rules

San Francisco’s Board of Supervisors unanimously approved an “ICE Free Zones Ordinance” on Tuesday, Feb. 24, 2026, establishing new restrictions on immigration enforcement activity on city-owned property. The measure was authored by Supervisors Chyanne Chen and Bilal Mahmood and was drafted with the City Attorney’s Office.

The legislation is structured as a city property and operations policy rather than a change to federal immigration law. San Francisco cannot prevent federal agencies from enforcing federal law in the city, but it can set conditions for how its own property is used and for what purposes.

What the ordinance does—and what it does not do

The ordinance targets the use of public property for activity that disrupts city operations or city services. It establishes that civil immigration enforcement activity on city property undermines city operations, and it creates a framework for the city to treat that use as unauthorized.

• It limits the ability of entities to use city property for immigration enforcement-related operations when that use is not authorized for a city purpose.
• It authorizes legal action by the City Attorney’s Office against entities engaged in unauthorized use of public properties.
• It is designed to reduce the likelihood of city facilities being used as staging areas, surveillance points, or operational bases for civil immigration enforcement activity.

The ordinance does not convert all public space into a jurisdiction where federal agents are categorically barred from being present. It is aimed at restricting the operational use of city property and responding to activities that interfere with city functions.

How it fits with San Francisco’s sanctuary laws

San Francisco’s existing sanctuary framework—rooted in the 1989 “City and County of Refuge” ordinance and later amendments—generally prohibits city employees from using city resources to assist with civil immigration enforcement unless required by state or federal law. Those rules focus on city conduct and cooperation.

The ICE Free Zones ordinance addresses a different gap: sanctuary policies limit city participation, but they do not, by themselves, prevent federal agencies from attempting to conduct enforcement operations on city property. The new ordinance is intended to define and protect city purposes for public property and municipal services.

Regional pattern and likely legal friction

The vote places San Francisco within a growing Bay Area trend as local governments explore ways to curb the use of government-controlled property for civil immigration enforcement activity. Similar “ICE-free zone” concepts have moved forward in other jurisdictions, including Santa Clara County and Alameda County, as well as in cities such as Richmond and San Jose.

Because federal immigration enforcement authority remains with the federal government, measures like these can set up disputes over property access, warrants, and the boundaries between federal operations and local control of facilities. San Francisco’s ordinance anticipates conflict by emphasizing unauthorized use of property and by empowering the City Attorney’s Office to pursue remedies through the courts.

The supervisors sponsoring the legislation framed it as a step aimed at maintaining access to city services and avoiding disruptions at public facilities.

Implementation details—such as signage, agency protocols, and the city’s response to attempted operational use of specific facilities—are expected to develop through administrative guidance consistent with the new ordinance.