New York's statewide ban on 287(g) agreements, which prohibit local law enforcement from assisting federal immigration authorities, took effect on August 25, 2024. The new law has sparked a federal lawsuit from fifteen county sheriffs who argue that the state is unlawfully interfering with federally authorized partnerships and undermining local control over law enforcement decisions.

Explainer Zohran Mamdani’s Mayoral Victory: Shaping New York City's Progressive Future

The legal dispute centers on the balance of power between state governments and the federal government, specifically whether a state can override local officials' decisions to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The outcome could have broad implications for the relationship between state and federal authority, especially in the context of immigration policy.

The Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul in May, voids all existing agreements between local law enforcement agencies and federal immigration authorities under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The law's supporters, including Hochul, argue that it is designed to keep police focused on local crime rather than diverting resources to what they describe as "the federal government’s mass deportation agenda." According to a state announcement, the measure aims to ensure that local law enforcement is not used to carry out federal immigration enforcement priorities.

The lawsuit, Bourgault v. Hochul, was filed in federal court on the day the ban took effect. The fifteen sheriffs challenging the law claim that it violates the U.S. Constitution’s supremacy clause by obstructing federal law, and the contract clause by retroactively voiding existing agreements between local agencies and federal authorities. They argue that the state is stripping locally elected sheriffs of their discretion to address public safety needs, particularly in cases involving crimes committed by people in the country illegally.

"When a State coerces local officials into abandoning the very cooperative mechanisms Congress authorized, it does not merely regulate its own internal affairs. It commandeers those officials into a regime of obstruction that frustrates the federal scheme."

— Plaintiffs' complaint, Bourgault v. Hochul

The sheriffs contend that New York’s Constitution grants them a degree of autonomy as locally elected officials, and that Albany’s directive to terminate federal partnerships is an overreach of state authority. Their complaint alleges that the law not only blocks future cooperation with federal immigration authorities but also retroactively nullifies existing contracts, which they argue is an "apparent violation of the contract clause."

The sheriffs further assert that the law undermines their ability to address local public safety concerns and removes a tool that some counties have used to cooperate with federal authorities in cases involving serious crimes. They maintain that the state is interfering with their discretion to determine how best to protect their communities.

State’s Defense and Broader Implications

Governor Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James have defended the law as a necessary measure to keep communities safe and to prevent local police from acting as "de-facto ICE agents." Hochul has stated that "ICE can no longer commandeer locally-funded police to aid an out-of-control federal agency with an $85 billion budget." James has added that her office will work to ensure law enforcement agencies comply with the new law.

The state is expected to argue that federal law allows participation in 287(g) agreements only "to the extent consistent with State and local law," which gives New York the authority to set limits on local law enforcement’s involvement in federal immigration enforcement. Supporters of the law also point to Supreme Court precedent that bars the federal government from "commandeering" state officials to enforce federal law, framing the ban as a legitimate exercise of state power over its subdivisions.

Legal experts note that the law reflects a broader trend among some states to limit local involvement in federal immigration enforcement, especially in the absence of comprehensive federal immigration reform. Supporters argue that the ban will help build trust between immigrant communities and local police, while opponents claim it will make it harder to address crimes involving non-citizens.

Federal Preemption and Recent Court Rulings

The constitutional debate at the heart of the lawsuit hinges on the supremacy clause, which gives federal law precedence over conflicting state law, particularly in areas like immigration. However, the federal statute’s language referencing state law complicates the issue, potentially giving New York a basis to restrict participation in 287(g) agreements.

A recent federal court ruling in Virginia provides additional context. On August 31, 2024, Senior U.S. District Judge Robert Payne blocked parts of a Virginia law that imposed new conditions on 287(g) agreements, finding that the federal government was likely to prevail on contract and supremacy clause grounds. However, the court allowed Virginia’s ban on new 287(g) agreements to stand, highlighting the legal complexity of the issue and the potential for different outcomes in different jurisdictions.

Legal observers note that if New York’s law is upheld, it could set a precedent for other states to withdraw from federal programs they oppose, raising questions about the uniform application of federal law. The outcome of Bourgault v. Hochul may determine whether states can direct local governments to abandon federally authorized partnerships and could influence future state-federal relations on immigration enforcement and other policy areas.

The case remains pending in federal court, with both sides preparing for further legal arguments. The decision is likely to be closely watched by other states, local governments, and immigration advocates across the country, as it could shape the future of state and local participation in federal immigration enforcement programs.