Chicago Mayor Johnson’s ICE directive is causing frustration among his own prosecutors

Chicago Mayor’s ICE Executive Order Faces Backlash

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson has unveiled an ambitious initiative targeting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. However, the city’s chief prosecutor has publicly criticized this anti-ICE executive order as “totally inappropriate” and labeled the mayor’s assertions about collaboration as “not true.”

In January, Johnson enacted the “ICE on Notice” executive order, which instructs the Chicago Police Department to investigate and document alleged misconduct by federal agents and provide that information to the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office to consider for prosecution.

Johnson previously stated that Cook County State’s Attorney Eileen O’Neal Burke’s office was on board with the executive order, asserting, “My office has worked closely with the State Attorney’s Office to ensure that this executive order does exactly what it was intended to do.”

In a sharp rebuttal, O’Neal Burke wrote on social media that Johnson’s claims were false, noting that her office did not receive the executive order until it was made public. She emphasized the importance of having accuracy in addressing such crucial matters.

Yvette Loizon, an attorney with the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office, issued a memo criticizing the order, claiming several provisions were “completely inappropriate” and could undermine the ability of federal agents to pursue legal action effectively.

The memo expressed O’Neal Burke’s deep concern regarding federal immigration agents allegedly causing distress in communities nationwide. It further stated that the mayor’s order adds unnecessary obstacles.

Loizon pointed out that the directive for police to take on prosecutions “at the direction of the Mayor’s Office” could make the process seem politically charged, which is problematic.

In response to the backlash, the Mayor’s Office claimed to have collaborated with the State Attorney’s Office in crafting the language of the order and asserted that their public statements showed agreement with the order’s goals.