San Francisco supervisors push to keep ICE off city turf

SAN FRANCISCO — A city supervisor will unveil legislation today that would prohibit the Trump administration from commandeering San Francisco property to stage federal immigration raids — the first proposal of its kind in the nation and one likely to prompt a legal showdown.

The proposal from Bilal Mahmood, a moderate Democrat, comes weeks after President Donald Trump called off a “surge” of federal agents in the famously liberal city following a late-night call with Mayor Daniel Lurie and pleas from wealthy tech CEOs.

Mahmood’s plan would prohibit ICE — or any outside government entity — from seizing city property for a purpose other than delivering city services. If the plan is adopted by the Board of Supervisors and signed by Lurie, it would block federal agents from using city parking lots, parks and hundreds of public buildings to stage their operations. The board is expected to vote in January.

The idea for the legislation, he told Playbook, came after the Trump administration took over city parking lots and other government property in Chicago and elsewhere for immigration enforcement sweeps and troop deployments.

“It was clear we needed something with teeth,” Mahmood said. "A city purpose is not civil immigration enforcement. This is a declaration of our local rights.”

He said his plan would not prevent ICE or other Homeland Security agents from entering city property to conduct targeted arrests — rather, they couldn’t stage operations or have an ongoing presence there. Still, the limitations would apply to large swaths of city-owned property including Golden Gate Park, the City Hall plaza and public transit stations.

There’s little doubt the proposal will draw backlash from the Trump administration, which could reignite tensions that had subsided this fall after Lurie and Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff, along with other prominent tech powerbrokers, implored Trump to stand down.

Mahmood seems to anticipate the legislation, written by City Attorney David Chiu and co-sponsored by Supervisor Chyanne Chen, will be challenged in court.

Lurie’s office did not respond to a request for comment, though the mayor was briefed on the plan. Lurie has deliberately avoided provoking Trump, a strategy that appears to have contributed to the president’s decision not to target San Francisco as he has Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., New Orleans or Portland.

But San Francisco’s powerful labor unions are lining up in support of Mahmood’s plan, arguing Lurie’s strategy might not work for much longer.

"Anyone who somehow thinks we can fly under the radar with this administration is living in a fantasy world,” said Rudy Gonzalez, head of the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council, which represents thousands of city workers. “That, to me, is not a sustainable model. This is a very specific thing the city can do that is not performative — is not going to poke the bear, necessarily."

Mahmood said he believes the plan is “legally defensible” because it applies to any outside government entity, including the state, that attempts to seize city property without permission. The Trump administration has challenged ICE bans in other places by asserting those policies discriminate against the federal government.

"We are saying this is about defending city property from anyone,” Mahmood said, noting it will assert the city has a constitutional property right to protect its property and a fearful workforce.

This reporting first appeared in California Playbook. Sign up to receive it in your inbox every weekday.