New York sheriffs face pressure as Hochul targets local ICE agreements

New York sets an August 25 deadline

New York’s Local Cops, Local Crimes Act is putting county sheriffs on a fast-moving deadline. Existing 287(g) agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must end by August 25, 2026.

Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James say the rule keeps local officers focused on local policing. As of August 14, five of the 12 agencies had told New York officials they intended to comply, leaving seven that had not yet formally confirmed plans to unwind their agreements.

Sheriffs push back on the new limits

The Local Cops, Local Crimes Act changes how New York agencies can work with federal immigration authorities. It bars state and local agencies from entering formal 287(g) agreements or similar arrangements that use local resources for federal civil immigration enforcement.

Supporters say the law draws a line between local policing and civil immigration enforcement. Some sheriffs disagree, arguing that cooperation with ICE can help them check the immigration status of people in custody.

Five agencies agree while seven remain

New York’s Local Cops, Local Crimes Act does not simply ask agencies to reconsider their ICE partnerships. The Attorney General’s Office notified 12 agencies with existing 287(g) agreements in July.

By August 14, five had told state officials they intended to comply, while seven had not yet formally confirmed that they would end their agreements before the August 25 deadline.

What 287(g) actually allows

The name 287(g) comes from a section of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. Under the program, participating local law enforcement agencies sign agreements with ICE and receive delegated authority, training, and oversight.

Depending on the model, trained officers may perform certain immigration functions while working in jails or other settings. New York’s law blocks those 287(g) partnerships and also restricts agreements that use local detention facilities to hold people solely for federal civil immigration violations.

Why local control is at the center

The dispute is not only about federal immigration policy. It is also about who should decide how county sheriffs use local staff, jail space, and law enforcement resources.

Hochul and James say civil immigration enforcement primarily belongs to federal authorities. Some county officials say their ICE partnerships support public safety and jail screening, creating a direct clash over local discretion and statewide legal requirements.

State enforcement adds new pressure

New York created the Office of Immigrant Trust within the Attorney General’s Office to investigate complaints, review suspected violations, issue subpoenas, and, when warranted, bring civil enforcement actions.

Attorney General Letitia James has said the state can seek civil action in court against agencies that fail to comply with the law. That means the August deadline could move disagreements from county offices into courtrooms.

Sheriffs take different paths

Several county leaders have pushed back against the state’s demand. Rensselaer County Sheriff Kyle Bourgault and County Executive Steve McLaughlin have defended the county’s 287(g) participation, saying it helps screen people already in the county jail and identify immigration issues.

Other sheriffs have taken a different path. Madison County Sheriff Todd Hood said he would terminate the formal 287(g) agreement. Still, he said his office would continue to cooperate with ICE in ways he believes remain permitted under state law.

Fun fact: DHS said in early 2026 that more than 1,255 287(g) agreements had been signed with state and local partners nationwide.

Federal lawsuit changes part of the picture

The federal government is challenging parts of New York’s immigration enforcement package. The Justice Department sued over state restrictions affecting federal officers, including face-covering and identification rules.

A federal judge later blocked enforcement of the face-covering restrictions against federal agents. The federal judge denied the government’s request for a preliminary injunction against New York’s 287(g) ban, leaving that provision enforceable while the broader litigation continues.

Little-known fact: By September 2025, DHS said the nationwide 287(g) program had passed 1,000 state and local law enforcement partnerships.

Why August 25 matters

The August 25 deadline matters because the state law gave existing partnerships time to wind down rather than ending them immediately. That transition period allowed agencies to review contracts, procedures, and jail operations.

For sheriffs still resisting, the remaining days are about more than paperwork. Agencies that oppose the law can challenge it in court, but only if they obtain judicial relief.

Ending 287(g) does not end ICE

One detail can get lost in the political debate: ending a 287(g) agreement does not erase ICE from New York. ICE remains a federal agency with immigration enforcement authority.

The state law focuses on how New York state and local agencies assist civil immigration enforcement. Federal officers can still perform federal duties while disputes continue over how much help local governments can legally provide.

County jails sit at the center

The disagreement also reaches county jails. Some 287(g) models are designed to operate with people already in local custody, allowing trained personnel to perform certain immigration functions under ICE supervision.

Supporters of those agreements say the arrangement improves information sharing. Critics argue that local involvement can blur the line between criminal policing and civil immigration enforcement, potentially affecting trust between residents and local authorities.

A national fight reaches New York

The New York fight reflects a larger national debate over immigration partnerships between Washington and local law enforcement. ICE has expanded the 287(g) program, while some states and cities have moved in the opposite direction.

That leaves local agencies navigating two levels of government with different policies. For residents, the practical effects can vary depending on law, county leadership, jail procedures, and federal enforcement priorities.

For another ICE update tied to airport enforcement, citizenship checks, and federal immigration actions, see why a U.S. citizen was detained while boarding a flight in Atlanta.

What happens after the deadline

For now, August 25 is the date to watch in New York. Agencies that still have 287(g) agreements face a state requirement to end them.

The bigger question will be what happens next. Courts may shape the limits of state and federal power, and sheriffs will have to adjust their policies as those decisions and enforcement actions eventually unfold.

For another ICE update tied to detention oversight, facility conditions, and state scrutiny, see why New Jersey launched an investigation after a death at the Newark detention center.

Should sheriffs have more local control, or should states set the rules on ICE agreements? Share your thoughts and drop a comment.

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.

Read More From This Brand:

• Private airport in Memphis faces calls to halt ICE detention flight services
• ICE enforcement faces new limits under Massachusetts’ latest state law
• Federal judge puts New York ban on ICE face masks on hold