I agree there are wide differences between the situations, but not in principle, only in circumstance. You think the circumstance is more significant than I do, and practically, tactically, momentarily you are obviously correct. I still disagree with "I wasn't interfering with the CDC" though... (none of the following is an endorsement of the CDC or Covid practices) The CDC's mission was to protect public health, and one of their strategies for achieving that goal was applying restrictions to public behavior. By going against those restrictions, you were interfering with their ability to accomplish their mission. the mission of ICE is immigration enforcement. If you interfere with their operations physically - or even stymy it more remotely, like harboring and transporting illegal immigrants - you are interfering with their ability to accomplish their mission. Either way, you are, as you point out, "inviting" the wrath of the State agency whose mandate you are frustrating. In both cases, the State's agencies and agents have an overarching mission that they attempt to accomplish through a spectrum of tactics from broadly communicating guidelines all the way down to laying hands on an individual. You may agree or disagree with various of those missions, or the breadth and severity of the tactics employed to accomplish them, but the pattern is identical between any State agency. Here's a simpler litmus test: If ICE enters your private property uninvited or declares your property a criminal investigation zone where special laws apply because what is going on at your house frustrates their ability to accomplish their mission, is that okay? If you think that is okay, how is that any different than the State applying special designations to certain private businesses? If you think that's not okay, then you **generally** know how people feel when they try to "keep ICE out".