Last week, a group of fifteen county sheriffs from across New York took legal action against a recently enacted state measure that bars local police departments from entering into immigration enforcement pacts with federal authorities—commonly referred to as 287(g) agreements. The legal challenge, brought with assistance from attorneys tied to the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), a conservative organization, also included an urgent request to prevent the state from canceling any existing arrangements.
Dubbed the “Local Cops, Local Crimes Act,” the legislation took effect just days before the filing and additionally established a new state body known as the Office of Immigrant Trust. At the heart of the sheriffs’ complaint is the claim that Albany overstepped its bounds by overriding decisions made at the local level regarding how law enforcement collaborates with federal agencies.
Among those leading the charge is Wayne County Sheriff Robert Milby, who framed the dispute not as an immigration matter but as a question of governmental authority. Milby noted that his county currently lacks a 287(g) agreement, though he had begun the process in 2025 to join a specific variant of the program focused on warrant service officers—a role that involves training local personnel to handle administrative warrants for migrants housed in county jails. He emphasized the need for local agencies to partner with federal counterparts in tackling issues such as fentanyl trafficking, which he described as frequently having cross-border roots.
Governor Kathy Hochul dismissed the lawsuit as a misuse of public funds and voiced confidence that the judicial system would uphold the state’s position. Observers with legal expertise suggest the sheriffs may find it difficult to prevail. Roderick Hills Jr., who teaches law at New York University, pointed to past rulings that favored state governments in analogous cases, underscoring that municipalities and counties derive their existence from the state and are therefore subject to its directives.
This New York case sits within a wider national tug-of-war over 287(g) agreements, which have seen a notable uptick during President Trump’s second term. Under these pacts, local officers are empowered to carry out specific federal immigration functions. While a number of Democratic-controlled states have enacted prohibitions, sheriffs and federal officials have increasingly resisted such measures.
Parallel battles are unfolding elsewhere. In Maryland, seventeen sheriffs have mounted a similar legal challenge to that state’s ban, also backed by FAIR. Meanwhile, New Mexico’s attorney general is pressing a court to compel two county sheriffs to end their ICE partnerships. The U.S. Justice Department, for its part, initiated lawsuits against both Virginia and New York in June over their respective bans.
As the litigation moves forward, the practical impact of the New York law is already being felt: a dozen sheriffs who previously held ICE agreements have either terminated them or are in the process of doing so to comply with the statute. One sheriff’s office has already faced a state lawsuit for refusing to comply.
The plaintiffs contend that the law undermines local autonomy and jeopardizes public safety, while the state maintains it is exercising its rightful authority over subordinate governmental entities. As of now, no ruling has been issued on the emergency motion.