Will County Executive Jennifer Bertino-Tarrant on Friday moved to limit federal immigration enforcement activity on county-owned property, issuing an executive order that bars the use of such property as staging areas or operational bases for federal agents. Under the order, federal officers must present a warrant before conducting immigration enforcement operations on county property that is under the control of the executive’s office.

County officials framed the action as a response to constituent complaints. The executive order cites residents’ concerns about the scale and tactics of federal immigration enforcement and worries about potential violations of due process. The directive arrives a little more than a week after the County Board’s Legislative Committee proposed a resolution asking state and federal authorities to prohibit immigration enforcement inside courthouses, schools and other community spaces deemed sensitive.

The order’s immediate practical effect is narrowly tailored: it governs only county-owned sites managed by the executive branch rather than all county facilities. That distinction could blunt the order’s reach, since other county properties may fall under the authority of separate offices, including the sheriff, the courts or municipal partners. Legal experts and local officials will likely scrutinize how the order is implemented and whether it conflicts with the operational needs of law enforcement agencies or with federal enforcement prerogatives.

The executive order raises issues at the junction of local governance and federal immigration authority. Counties can set terms for the use of their own property, but they cannot unilaterally bar lawful federal activity across jurisdictional lines. The requirement that agents produce a warrant before acting on county-managed property sets a procedural standard that may be defended as reinforcing constitutional protections, while also exposing the county to legal challenge if federal authorities contend exigent circumstances justify warrantless entry.

Politically, the order reflects growing local unease over immigration enforcement tactics and is likely to sharpen debates about the proper role of county governments in mediating the relationship between residents and federal agencies. The County Board committee’s proposed resolution signals an appetite among some local policymakers to press for broader prohibitions in signature public spaces such as courthouses and schools, but those proposals would require additional votes and could encounter resistance from law enforcement officials and state or federal authorities.

For residents, advocates and civic groups, the executive order offers an immediate procedural protection on certain county properties and a platform to press for wider policy changes. For county administrators, it will require carefully delineating which properties fall under executive control and coordinating with sheriff’s offices, court administrators and external agencies to manage enforcement requests without contravening the directive. The order is likely to prompt legal review and further political debate as stakeholders assess its scope, constitutionality and practical effects on community safety and due process.