New York’s Powerful 287(g) Ban Takes Effect, Reshaping Local Policing
New York’s new Local Cops, Local Crimes provision bars local agencies from serving as federal immigration partners under 287(g), setting up a major test of state power, community policing and federal immigration enforcement.
New York’s New York 287(g) ban took effect Tuesday, August 25, changing how local police, sheriffs and correctional agencies may participate in federal civil immigration enforcement. Under the state’s Local Cops, Local Crimes provision, state and local agencies can no longer enter into or remain in agreements that deputize their personnel to perform certain immigration enforcement functions for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The law does not end cooperation between New York police and federal authorities on criminal investigations.
The distinction is important. New York is not attempting to eliminate ICE or prevent federal immigration officers from enforcing federal law. Instead, state leaders say locally funded police officers should spend their time investigating local crimes, responding to emergencies and building relationships with the communities they serve.
Governor Kathy Hochul made that argument as the provision took effect.
“Here in New York, we need local police focused on keeping our communities safe,” Hochul said Tuesday.
The policy represents one of New York’s strongest attempts yet to draw a line between local policing and federal civil immigration enforcement.
What Is a 287(g) Agreement?
A 287(g) agreement is a partnership authorized under Section 287(g) of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. It allows ICE to train and authorize selected state or local law enforcement personnel to perform certain federal immigration functions under federal supervision.
Depending on the type of agreement, participating officers can perform duties that otherwise would generally be carried out by federal immigration officers.
The agreements have included several models, such as:
-
jail-based immigration enforcement;
-
service of administrative immigration warrants on people already in custody;
-
and, under broader models, immigration-related enforcement connected with everyday police activity.
New York’s law prohibits state agencies, local governments, police departments, sheriffs, correctional facilities and other covered entities from remaining in 287(g) agreements or similar arrangements involving civil immigration enforcement.
The legislation also restricts agreements allowing local facilities to house people solely for federal civil immigration violations.
New York Ordered Existing Agreements Ended by August 25
The change did not arrive without warning.
On July 24, Attorney General Letitia James and Hochul announced that the newly created Office of Immigrant Trust had sent notices to 12 New York law enforcement agencies that still had 287(g) agreements.
Those agencies were told that the agreements had to be unwound by August 25.
By August 14, Hochul and James said five of the 12 agencies had indicated that they intended to comply with the law.
Seven had not yet done so at that point. State officials specifically identified the Nassau County Sheriff’s Office and Nassau County Police Department among those facing the deadline.
The status of individual agreements has shifted during the year. When Hochul first proposed the legislation in January, her administration reported 14 New York law enforcement agencies operating under 287(g) arrangements. By July, the Attorney General’s office sent notices to 12 agencies then identified as having agreements requiring termination.
That changing number is one reason individual agency status should be treated carefully as the law takes effect.
What the New York 287(g) Ban Actually Does
The Local Cops, Local Crimes provision is narrower than some descriptions of the law suggest.
It prohibits local immigration deputization
New York police and correctional agencies cannot participate in 287(g) agreements that make their personnel extensions of federal civil immigration enforcement.
It restricts local resources for civil immigration detention
Covered state and local facilities cannot be used under prohibited agreements to house people solely for federal civil immigration violations.
It does not prohibit criminal cooperation
This may be the most important point for readers.
The Hochul administration has repeatedly said the law does not stop state or local police from working with federal law enforcement agencies on criminal investigations or efforts to apprehend people suspected of crimes.
Federal, state and local agencies routinely cooperate on drug trafficking, terrorism, gun violence, organized crime and other criminal investigations. Nothing in the 287(g) prohibition creates a blanket ban on that cooperation.
The dividing line is federal civil immigration enforcement.
Why Hochul Says the Ban Improves Public Safety
Hochul and supporters of the legislation argue that police effectiveness depends heavily on public trust.
If immigrants believe that calling local police could expose themselves or relatives to immigration enforcement, supporters say they may become reluctant to report domestic violence, theft, workplace abuse or other crimes.
Brooklyn District Attorney Eric Gonzalez made that argument when Hochul first introduced the legislation. He said victims and witnesses who fear deportation may stop coming forward, leaving crimes unresolved.
Supporters also argue that police departments have limited personnel and budgets.
In their view, every hour a locally funded officer spends performing federal civil immigration duties is an hour that officer cannot spend addressing burglaries, assaults, traffic safety, gun violence or other community concerns.
Utica Police Chief Mark Williams and Deputy Police Chief Ed Noonan were among the law enforcement officials identified by Hochul’s office earlier this year as supporters of the Local Cops, Local Crimes proposal.
For Central New York readers, that local support is notable. It shows the dispute is not simply a traditional argument between law enforcement and immigration advocates. Police officials themselves have taken different positions over how far local departments should become involved in federal immigration enforcement.
Trump Administration Says the Law Goes Too Far
The federal government strongly disagrees with New York’s approach.
The Trump administration sued New York in June, arguing that the state was interfering with federal immigration authority and challenging several pieces of the state’s new immigration enforcement package.
The Justice Department described New York’s restrictions on 287(g) agreements as an unconstitutional interference with the federal government.
Federal officials argue that partnerships with local law enforcement help ICE identify and remove people who may pose public safety threats.
The Department of Homeland Security has also argued that restricting cooperation could force ICE to conduct more immigration enforcement operations in communities rather than taking custody of individuals through local jail systems.
That is the central counterargument to Hochul’s position.
Supporters of 287(g) agreements say local and federal cooperation can improve information sharing and help federal officials locate people who may be subject to immigration enforcement.
Critics say the same arrangement turns local officers into immigration agents, discouraging residents from contacting police and diverting local resources toward federal responsibilities.
Federal Judge Declined to Block the 287(g) Ban
The legal fight is far from finished, but New York won an important early ruling.
On August 3, Attorney General James and Hochul announced that the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York had denied the federal government’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have prevented the state from enforcing the 287(g) prohibition while litigation continued.
That ruling allowed today’s August 25 deadline to move forward.
The decision should not be confused with a final judgment declaring every disputed portion of New York’s immigration package permanently constitutional.
In fact, the court separately blocked enforcement of New York’s prohibition on federal officers wearing masks while litigation over that provision continues.
The competing outcomes illustrate how complex this broader state-federal legal battle has become.
Attorney General’s New Office Can Investigate Violations
Enforcement will now fall in part to the New York Attorney General’s newly established Office of Immigrant Trust.
According to James’ office, the bureau can:
-
receive complaints;
-
investigate alleged violations;
-
subpoena records where legally authorized;
-
interview witnesses;
-
provide guidance to public agencies; and
-
pursue civil enforcement when warranted.
The office was created as part of the state’s broader immigration legislation signed in May.
That means the August 25 deadline is more than a symbolic policy statement. Local governments that continue prohibited arrangements could face state scrutiny and possible legal action.
What Happens Next?
Three issues now deserve close attention.
First is compliance. New Yorkers will need to know whether every affected law enforcement agency has formally terminated its prohibited agreement.
Second is enforcement. The Attorney General’s office will have to determine what action to take if a local agency refuses to comply or tries to maintain substantially similar cooperation through another arrangement.
Third is the courts. The Trump administration’s constitutional challenge remains important. The dispute raises fundamental questions about the federal government’s immigration authority and a state’s power to control how its own agencies, employees and taxpayer-funded resources are used.
Those questions could ultimately be decided through continued federal litigation.
A New Line Between Local Policing and Immigration Enforcement
The Local Cops, Local Crimes provision does not settle America’s larger immigration debate.
It does something more specific.
New York has decided that local police officers should not be deputized through 287(g) agreements to perform federal civil immigration enforcement.
Supporters see that as a way to restore trust, protect limited police resources and make residents more willing to report crime.
Opponents see it as an unnecessary barrier between federal immigration authorities and local law enforcement.
Both debates will continue.
But as of August 25, 2026, the policy itself is no longer merely a proposal. The New York 287(g) ban is in effect.
New Yorkers should watch how local departments respond, how Attorney General James enforces the law and how federal courts rule on the continuing constitutional challenge. Whatever one’s position on immigration policy, residents deserve clear information about who is enforcing the law, what authority they are exercising and how public safety resources are being used.
Sources
Key information was verified through the New York Governor’s Office, New York Attorney General’s Office, U.S. Department of Justice, federal court developments and contemporaneous reporting on implementation of the August 25 deadline.
