The purpose of this qualitative case study was to understand the immigration federalism framework for public administrators in Texas border cities. This study aimed to explore the experiences and perspectives of public administration officials in managing immigration challenges and integrating immigrant populations into their communities. The guiding theory is Friedman’s immigration federalism framework, emphasizing state and local actor involvement in developing immigration policies (Friedman, 2022). Friedman’s framework explains why cascading effects of federal level actions are inapplicable at the local level and how a theory meeting communities’ needs is preferential to the removed policies instituted at higher levels of government. An unstable public administration response hampers the socio-political pillar of civic capacity and engagement. The action, or inaction, at the federal level forces state and local governments to enact solutions to public administration concerns. Currently, there is no change in federal immigration policy; therefore, states act divisively according to local needs. The findings informed public administrators on leading practices for managing immigration challenges and integrating immigrant populations, thereby enhancing civic engagement, as well as acknowledging the diverse roles of public administrators. The influence of future decisions rests on public administrators’ ability to convey roles, impacts, and potential solutions to immigration federalism changes. A qualitative case study approach compared reactions to immigration federalism in three Texas border cities. Data was collected through interviews with ten public administration officials, a focus group of three public administration officials, and an analysis of state news media and demographic data.