Hochul’s directive targets formal agreements that delegate certain immigration-enforcement duties to local officers, not every interaction between New York law enforcement and ICE.
New York Gov. Kathy Hochul says state law bars law-enforcement agencies from entering formal agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE. Her administration has directed seven agencies to unwind 287(g) arrangements within 11 days, with possible legal action if they do not comply.
The dispute places local sheriffs between a federal immigration-enforcement partnership and what the state describes as an existing restriction under New York law. It is not presented as a new statewide prohibition created by the deadline.
What Hochul says state law prohibits
Hochul’s position focuses on the formal agreement itself. Her administration says New York law prohibits law-enforcement agencies from entering 287(g) agreements with ICE, even if local officials believe those partnerships serve a public-safety purpose.
The governor announced the directive during an immigration-focused appearance with New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani and state Attorney General Letitia James. Hochul framed the move as part of a wider response to what she called aggressive federal immigration enforcement.
For the state, the immediate issue is whether local agencies formally take on delegated federal immigration-enforcement functions. That is narrower than a question of whether ICE may operate in New York.
How 287(g) agreements work
The arrangements at the center of the dispute are known as 287(g) agreements, named for a section of federal immigration law. Under the program, ICE can delegate limited immigration-enforcement responsibilities to state or local officers who receive training and operate under federal supervision.
The agreements can work differently by location. Some involve jail settings, where local officials may help identify people in custody whom ICE might seek to place in immigration detention. Others can involve officers working more directly with ICE outside a jail environment.
ICE describes the program as allowing state and local agencies to enforce certain aspects of immigration law under ICE oversight. The state’s objection, according to Hochul’s administration, is to local agencies entering the formal partnerships.
What the directive does not automatically decide
Ending a 287(g) agreement would terminate a formal delegation of immigration-enforcement duties, but it would not necessarily end all routine contact between a sheriff’s office and ICE.
Local agencies may still encounter ICE requests, immigration detainers or federal agents seeking access to people held in custody. The immediate conflict concerns contracts through which local agencies formally assume delegated ICE functions, rather than every form of communication with the federal government.
Federal law gives ICE authority to administer its immigration-enforcement programs, while states have broad authority over their own agencies and local subdivisions. If the dispute reaches court, a central question may be whether New York can direct its local agencies not to participate in these specific formal partnerships.
Seven agencies have 11 days remaining
Twelve New York law-enforcement agencies were notified by the state. According to the reported figures, five said they intended to comply with state law, leaving seven agencies with 11 days to formally unwind their ICE arrangements.
Hochul and James said the remaining agencies include the Nassau County Sheriff’s Office and Police Department. The administration’s public transcript described an initial 13-day period to end the agreements; by the time the ultimatum was reported, the seven remaining agencies had 11 days left.
Available information does not spell out how every agency will respond, whether each agreement has identical terms or whether any local officials will challenge the state’s interpretation of the law. Those unanswered points could determine whether the deadline ends with paperwork or litigation.
Public safety arguments and legal action remain central
Hochul’s administration argues that separating local policing from federal immigration enforcement can strengthen trust among residents who may otherwise fear that reporting crime or assisting an investigation could carry immigration consequences. That concern is a core argument behind sanctuary-style policies.
Critics of 287(g) agreements say the arrangements can blur the boundary between local policing and immigration enforcement and can affect people who have no criminal conviction. Supporters of cooperation with ICE argue that information-sharing and access to federal detention processes can improve public safety, particularly when a person in local custody has been accused or convicted of a serious crime.
Hochul said agencies that do not comply may face legal action. A lawsuit could examine the reach of New York’s law, the authority of the state over locally elected sheriffs and the specific obligations contained in each 287(g) arrangement. It could also require agencies to show whether they have ended their participation.
At the same event, Hochul announced $7.25 million in legal-services funding for about 1,400 unaccompanied immigrant children and young people facing active removal proceedings in New York. For the seven agencies, the immediate question is whether they provide evidence that their formal ICE agreements have been terminated or otherwise unwound.
Leave a Reply