Dozens of protesters gathered outside the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices in downtown Las Vegas on January 8, 2026. They carried signs. They chanted. They demanded accountability after a federal agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Macklin Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, in Minneapolis during a nationwide immigration crackdown operation.
“The biggest reason I came out is because I want to show solidarity for other Americans that are going through this,” Crystal Cooper, president of the Southern Nevada chapter of 50501, told reporters. Her voice reflected the anger and fear rippling through immigrant communities nationwide.
The protest remained peaceful. Las Vegas Metro Police followed the group through the night, issued four citations, and made no arrests. But the demonstration highlighted tensions that have been building in Las Vegas for months over local law enforcement’s partnership with federal immigration authorities.
Those tensions won’t be resolved with a single protest. They reflect fundamental disagreements about immigration enforcement, local police priorities, and constitutional rights. And Las Vegas Metro’s decision to formalize a partnership with ICE places the department at the center of a national debate.
The 287(g) Agreement Explained
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department signed a 287(g) agreement with ICE in 2025. The name refers to Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows local law enforcement agencies to enter into partnerships with federal immigration authorities.
The agreement gives Metro officers limited authority to perform immigration enforcement functions. Specifically, when someone is arrested for certain offenses, including DUI, domestic violence, or most felonies, Metro notifies ICE regardless of the person’s immigration status.
“When an individual is arrested for those offenses… if you get arrested for one of those charges, regardless of who you are, when you come to the Clark County detention center, we notify ICE,” Sheriff Kevin McMahill explained in a December 2025 interview.
McMahill emphasized that Metro is not participating in immigration roundups or workplace raids. The department’s cooperation with ICE occurs only after someone is already in custody for a separate offense. That distinction matters to McMahill, who argues Metro is only notifying federal authorities about people he doesn’t want released into the community anyway.
Critics aren’t convinced the distinction is meaningful.
The ACLU’s Legal Challenge
The American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada filed a lawsuit in October 2025 challenging the legality of Metro’s partnership with ICE. The suit, filed in Clark County District Court, names Sheriff McMahill as a defendant and raises two primary arguments.
First, the ACLU contends the 287(g) agreement violates Dillon’s Rule, a legal doctrine stating that local agencies cannot exercise powers unless specifically authorized by the state legislature. Nevada’s legislature has not explicitly authorized local law enforcement to perform immigration enforcement functions.
Second, the suit alleges the partnership violates state law requiring the federal government to cover the costs of detaining federal prisoners in county jails. When Metro holds someone for ICE, the county bears those detention costs unless ICE reimburses them.
The lawsuit remains pending. Metro declined to comment on pending litigation, which is standard practice. But the legal challenge creates uncertainty about whether the department can maintain the partnership long-term.
Athar Haseebullah, executive director of the Nevada ACLU, has been the most vocal critic of Metro’s ICE cooperation. He argues the partnership undermines community trust in local police, particularly in immigrant communities where people fear any interaction with law enforcement could lead to deportation.
“The entire notion that Metro is operating under is to just trust them to do the right thing,” Haseebullah said. That trust is difficult when federal immigration enforcement has become increasingly aggressive and controversial.
The Minneapolis Shooting
The January 8 protest in Las Vegas was one of many demonstrations across the country responding to what happened in Minneapolis. Federal video shows an ICE agent shooting Renee Good in her car during a raid operation. The administration called it self-defense, claiming Good used her SUV as a weapon and tried to run over agents.
The shooting happened during the first day of a nationwide crackdown involving approximately 2,000 officers. Video of the incident circulated widely online, fueling outrage and renewed calls for ICE accountability.
U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem defended the agent’s actions. “This vehicle was used to hit this officer,” she said during a news conference. “It was used as a weapon, and the officer feels that his life was in jeopardy.”
Critics point out that Good was a U.S. citizen who should never have been targeted in an immigration enforcement operation. The fact that ICE agents killed an American citizen during an immigration raid demonstrates the dangers of aggressive enforcement tactics.
The incident triggered protests in cities nationwide. In Las Vegas, organizers from Indivisible Las Vegas coordinated the demonstration, which featured speeches from Haseebullah, community organizer Gabriel Cornejo, Michael Kagan from the UNLV Immigration Clinic, and Noe Orosco of the Nevada Immigration Coalition.
The event began with a prayer and included a funeral procession march, complete with a coffin, from the Federal Courthouse to ICE headquarters and back. The symbolism was clear: ICE’s enforcement tactics are killing people.
The Community Impact
The protests and legal challenges reflect genuine fear in Las Vegas’s immigrant communities. Nevada’s economy depends heavily on industries that employ significant numbers of immigrants, both documented and undocumented. Hospitality, construction, food service, and agriculture all rely on immigrant labor.
When local police partner with ICE, immigrants become less likely to report crimes, cooperate with investigations, or seek help from law enforcement. If calling the police about a domestic violence incident could lead to deportation, victims stay silent. If reporting a theft could expose your immigration status, you don’t report it.
That creates public safety problems for everyone. Criminals operating in immigrant communities know their victims won’t call police. Domestic abusers exploit fear of deportation to maintain control. Witnesses to serious crimes refuse to come forward.
Sheriff McMahill argues Metro’s limited cooperation with ICE doesn’t create these problems because notification only happens after arrest for serious offenses. If you’re not committing crimes, you have nothing to worry about.
But that logic ignores the reality of how immigrant communities experience law enforcement. People without documentation live with constant anxiety about any interaction with authorities. The knowledge that Metro notifies ICE about arrests, even for minor offenses like DUI, reinforces that fear.
The Culinary Union, which represents tens of thousands of hospitality workers in Las Vegas, has expressed concerns about ICE enforcement tactics. The union cited reports from the Nevada Immigration Coalition documenting 12 ICE raids over a single Easter weekend.
“What we know is that at the end of the day, the idea that these ICE agents are going to go to schools and churches and workplaces and take folks out that are otherwise law-abiding,” Culinary Union Secretary-Treasurer Ted Pappageorge said. “Nobody voted for that. Everybody agrees there needs to be a secure border, and everybody agrees that violent criminals should be deported. But this is the United States of America.”
The Political Context
Immigration enforcement has become intensely partisan. The Trump administration, which began its second term in January 2025, promised aggressive deportation operations and expanded ICE authority. The administration characterized criticism of ICE as support for criminals and open borders.
Critics characterize ICE operations as civil rights violations that terrorize immigrant communities without making anyone safer. They point to cases like Renee Good’s killing as evidence that aggressive enforcement tactics are dangerous and poorly targeted.
Las Vegas Metro’s decision to formalize a 287(g) agreement places the department squarely in that political debate. Some residents support the partnership and believe local police should assist federal authorities in enforcing all laws, including immigration laws. Others view the partnership as betraying immigrant communities and enabling federal overreach.
Sheriff McMahill, who was elected rather than appointed, faces political pressure from both sides. Supporting ICE cooperation risks alienating immigrant communities and progressive voters. Ending the partnership risks attacks from conservatives who believe local police should support federal enforcement efforts.
The lawsuit from the ACLU gives McMahill political cover to some extent. He can claim his hands are tied by the courts rather than taking full responsibility for policy decisions. But ultimately, he chose to pursue the 287(g) agreement knowing it would be controversial.
The Comparison to 2020
Haseebullah has drawn parallels between the current wave of protests and the demonstrations following George Floyd’s killing in May 2020. Both situations involve anger over federal law enforcement actions perceived as excessive and unconstitutional. Both have triggered nationwide protests calling for systemic changes.
“This is feeling like 2020 now more than last year felt like 2020,” Haseebullah said. “I think that is an indication of where people are at emotionally. They are exhausted by everything they have seen.”
The comparison has merit. The protests share similar dynamics: deeply felt grievances about law enforcement accountability, questions about use of force, demands for institutional reform, and frustration that existing accountability mechanisms aren’t working.
But there are also important differences. The 2020 protests focused primarily on local police departments and their treatment of Black communities. The current protests target federal immigration enforcement and its impact on immigrant communities. The constituencies overlap but aren’t identical.
The political environment has also changed. In 2020, many local governments responded to protests by implementing police reforms, though most changes were modest. In 2026, with a pro-enforcement federal administration and more conservative political climate in many areas, protesters face different obstacles.
What Protesters Want
The Las Vegas demonstrations reflect several overlapping demands. Some protesters want Metro to end its 287(g) agreement and stop cooperating with ICE entirely. They argue local police should focus on local crime, not federal immigration enforcement.
Others want broader changes to federal immigration policy. They support pathways to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, particularly those who have lived in the U.S. for years and have family ties here. They oppose mass deportation operations and want more humane enforcement approaches.
Some protesters focus specifically on ICE accountability. They want investigations into use of force incidents, clearer rules about when and how agents can conduct raids, and consequences for agents who violate policies or rights.
The diversity of demands makes it difficult to identify clear policy solutions that would satisfy everyone. Immigration reform requires congressional action, which seems unlikely given partisan gridlock. ICE operates under executive branch authority that local officials can’t control. Metro’s 287(g) agreement is subject to ongoing litigation.
Haseebullah encourages people to exercise their First Amendment rights while remaining peaceful and vigilant. “Protests are the voice of the public so that we can get change and we can get justice,” he said. “For individuals who are out there, don’t throw things, don’t engage in any violent conduct of any sort, and make sure that you are listening, you are paying attention to your circumstances and those around you, but do not forfeit your right to protest.”
The Path Forward
Las Vegas faces difficult choices about immigration enforcement and police priorities. The 287(g) agreement will either survive the legal challenge or be struck down by courts. If it survives, the ACLU will likely appeal. If it gets struck down, Metro will need to decide whether to pursue the partnership through different legal mechanisms.
Meanwhile, ICE operations will continue. Federal agents have broad authority to enforce immigration law regardless of local cooperation. Metro’s partnership makes those operations more efficient by providing information about people already in custody, but ICE doesn’t need Metro’s help to conduct raids or arrests.
The protests will likely continue as well. Immigration enforcement remains a flashpoint issue with deeply held views on all sides. Every controversial ICE operation, every use of force incident, every deportation of someone with community ties will trigger new demonstrations.
For Las Vegas, a city that depends on immigrant labor and prides itself on welcoming people from around the world, the current tensions create genuine challenges. How do you maintain public safety while also maintaining trust in immigrant communities? How do you balance local priorities with federal law enforcement demands? How do you navigate partisan political debates while serving all residents?
Those questions don’t have easy answers. But they need to be asked, debated, and addressed thoughtfully rather than ignored or dismissed. The protesters gathering outside ICE offices are forcing those conversations. Whether Las Vegas is ready to have them remains to be seen.
Key Insights
Metro’s 287(g) agreement creates notification requirements only after arrests for specific offenses, but this distinction fails to address immigrant community concerns about any cooperation with ICE undermining trust in local law enforcement.
The ACLU’s lawsuit challenging the 287(g) agreement on state law grounds creates legal uncertainty while providing Sheriff McMahill political cover for a controversial partnership that faces pressure from both supporters and opponents.
The Minneapolis shooting of U.S. citizen Renee Good during an ICE operation demonstrates the risks of aggressive enforcement tactics and has triggered nationwide protests including multiple demonstrations in Las Vegas.
Immigration enforcement conflicts reflect fundamental tensions between local police priorities, federal enforcement mandates, and community trust that cannot be resolved through law enforcement policy alone but require broader legislative action unlikely to occur given partisan gridlock.
Sources
News3 Las Vegas Protest Coverage
News3 ACLU Interview
8 News Now Demonstration Report
Nevada Independent ACLU Lawsuit
ACLU National Statement
