Local and state governments in Arizona and New Mexico have implemented measures to restrict the operational capacity of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), precipitating legal challenges from state and federal authorities.

亞利桑那州與新墨西哥州的地方與州政府已採取措施限制美國移民及海關執法局 (ICE) 的運作能力，進而引起州政府與聯邦當局的法律挑戰。

In Tucson, Arizona, the municipal council enacted legislation prohibiting the utilization of city-owned property for federal immigration staging and processing, absent a judicial warrant. This measure follows a broader trend among Democratic-led municipalities to limit federal enforcement activities. However, the Arizona legislature, maintaining a Republican majority, has historically utilized SB 1487 to curtail municipal autonomy. This statute permits state legislators to challenge local ordinances via the state attorney general; non-compliance may result in the forfeiture of up to 50% of state funding. Consequently, Tucson has previously rescinded ordinances regarding firearm disposal and vaccination mandates under this mechanism. The current tension is exacerbated by a fragmented political landscape where a Democratic executive branch coexists with a Republican-controlled legislature.

在亞利桑那州的圖森，市議會通過立法，規定在沒有司法令的情況下，禁止將市有財產用於聯邦移民的集結與處理。此舉遵循了民主黨領導的市級政府限制聯邦執法活動的廣泛趨勢。然而，由共和黨佔多數的亞利桑那州議會，歷史上一直利用 SB 1487 來削弱市級自治權。該法令允許州議員透過州總檢察長對地方條例提出質詢；若不遵守，可能會導致最高 50% 的州政府資金被沒收。因此，圖森此前曾根據此機制撤銷關於槍械處理與疫苗強制令的條例。目前的緊張局勢因政治版圖破碎而加劇，民主黨的行政分支與共和黨控制的立法機關並存。

Parallel developments in New Mexico involve the Immigrant Safety Act and Albuquerque's Safer Community Places Ordinance. The former prohibits local governments from contracting with ICE for detention and bans cooperation agreements with local police. The latter restricts immigration enforcement at municipal facilities and mandates employer notification of ICE presence. The U.S. Department of Justice has initiated litigation against New Mexico and Albuquerque, asserting that these measures unlawfully interfere with federal constitutional authority over immigration. While the state argues these laws are a valid exercise of state authority, federal prosecutors contend they disrupt essential partnerships. Despite these restrictions, certain detention facilities, such as those in Cibola and Torrance counties, continue to operate through direct contracts between ICE and private entities, bypassing local government involvement.

新墨西哥州的平行發展則涉及《移民安全法》與阿爾伯克基的《更安全社區場所條例》。前者禁止地方政府與 ICE 簽訂拘留合約，並禁止與當地警察達成合作協議。後者則限制在市級設施進行移民執法，並要求雇主在 ICE 出現時予以通知。美國司法部已對新墨西哥州與阿爾伯克基提起訴訟，主張這些措施非法干擾聯邦在移民問題上的憲法權限。儘管州政府辯稱這些法律是合法行使州權，但聯邦檢察官認為它們破壞了關鍵的合作夥伴關係。儘管存在這些限制，某些拘留設施（如西博拉縣和托蘭斯縣的設施）仍透過 ICE 與私人實體直接簽約來運作，繞過了地方政府的參與。

The current landscape is characterized by ongoing litigation and legislative friction as municipal and state entities attempt to insulate local jurisdictions from federal immigration enforcement.

目前的格局以持續的訴訟與立法摩擦為特徵，因為市級與州級實體試圖使地方管轄區免於聯邦移民執法的影響。