New York Law Ends Local Police Role in Federal Immigration Detentions

A new law in New York has significantly changed how local law enforcement interacts with federal immigration authorities. The Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, signed into law on May 27, 2026, ends the practice of 287(g) agreements. This means local police and jails can no longer assist U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) with civil immigration enforcement. This change affects how immigrants interact with local law enforcement and how federal immigration operations are conducted within the state.

Ending 287(g) Agreements in New York

The 287(g) program, established under federal law, allowed the Department of Homeland Security to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies. These agreements trained and authorized local officers to perform certain federal immigration enforcement functions. New York’s new law voids all 14 active 287(g) agreements across nine counties. This action withdraws state and local resources from assisting in federal civil immigration enforcement.

The law specifically prohibits taxpayer-funded personnel, equipment, and technology from aiding federal civil immigration enforcement. Furthermore, local jails are now forbidden from contracting with ICE to hold individuals facing civil immigration detention. Governor Kathy Hochul emphasized that the law targets civil immigration enforcement, not individuals involved in criminal activities. This distinction is a key part of the law’s defense and its likely point of legal contention.

Legal Basis and Precedent

The federal authority for 287(g) agreements is found in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) § 287(g), codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g). This provision allows for delegation of immigration functions but does not compel states to participate. New York’s decision is framed as revoking state participation in a cooperative structure, rather than nullifying federal immigration law itself.

Legal challenges to such state actions often involve the doctrine of preemption. In Arizona v. United States (2012), the Supreme Court affirmed federal authority over immigration enforcement but did not mandate state cooperation. The anti-commandeering doctrine, established in cases like Printz v. United States (1997), generally prevents the federal government from forcing state officers to implement federal programs. New York’s law aligns with this by allowing states to decline participation in federal civil immigration enforcement.

Impact on Local Policing and Communities

The Local Cops, Local Crimes Act aims to separate local policing from federal civil immigration enforcement. State lawmakers stated this was a response to increased federal activity in 2025 and 2026. By ending these cooperative agreements, New York seeks to prevent local police from being used for civil immigration actions, which could erode trust within communities. Supporters argue that this separation may encourage witnesses and victims to report crimes without fear of deportation consequences.

The law also introduces new state-level protections. Federal agents conducting civil enforcement in New York now face state-law limits in sensitive locations like schools, hospitals, and places of worship, unless they have a judicial warrant. The statute also includes provisions allowing for civil actions against federal officers accused of violating constitutional rights. Additionally, federal agents are required to wear visible uniforms and name badges during civil enforcement actions, with masks generally prohibited.

Federal Response and Potential Litigation

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has criticized New York’s new law, stating it could make communities less safe. DHS released figures suggesting that since January 20, 2026, New York policies have led to the release of thousands of noncitizens described as “criminal illegal aliens.” These figures include individuals charged with or convicted of serious offenses. DHS argues that reduced cooperation hinders their enforcement efforts.

However, these numbers do not directly address the legal question of whether states can refuse to provide resources for federal civil enforcement. Legal analysis suggests that provisions ending 287(g) agreements, restricting funding, and banning jail contracts are likely within New York’s control over its own employees, facilities, and budgets. Other provisions, such as sensitive location rules and civil liability measures, might face closer legal scrutiny if they are seen as directly interfering with federal operations or regulating federal officers.

Practical Implications for Immigrants and Employers

The immediate effects of the law may vary. Individuals in county jails might see fewer transfers to ICE custody through formal cooperation channels. ICE may increase arrests in the community, which can lead to different legal issues, such as warrant requirements for entering homes. For immigrants in New York, it is important to understand that federal immigration enforcement has not stopped. The enforcement setting may shift from local jails to the community.

Employers, local agencies, and noncitizens should carefully review the law’s specifics. It withdraws local participation in civil enforcement and limits detention contracts but does not halt federal immigration enforcement. Counties that previously had 287(g) programs will need to update their policies and training. Noncitizens with past ICE contact should not assume their risk has vanished, as enforcement tactics may change. Anyone facing immigration consequences should consult with a qualified immigration attorney to understand how these new state protections interact with federal enforcement.