New York Sheriffs Sue State Over Ban on ICE Cooperation Agreements

Border security issues are never far from Wayne County Sheriff Robert Milby's mind. The rural county he oversees lies along the northern border between the U.S. and Canada.

"Local crime, while it manifests locally, most of the time it's international in origin," he told NPR in an interview. He pointed to crimes related to fentanyl and other drugs as an example. Milby said solving and preventing these crimes requires that local, state and federal authorities work together seamlessly.

"Throughout history the only way that law enforcement is successful is when all levels work together," he said.

Maintaining those relationships is part of what drove his involvement in a new lawsuit against the state filed last week. He's one of 15 sheriffs in New York suing the state over a new law banning local law enforcement agencies from signing cooperation deals with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, known as 287(g) agreements. Lawyers with the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a conservative advocacy group that seeks to curb immigration, are representing the sheriffs.

These agreements, which have grown exponentially under President Trump's second term, allow local law enforcement to assist ICE and deputize local police to perform certain federal immigration enforcement duties.

Trump's ambitious deportation goals depend largely on this cooperation between local law enforcement and federal agencies. But some Democratic-led states, like New York, are pushing back by passing 287(g) bans for local police and sheriffs' departments.

New York's "Local Cops, Local Crimes Act" went into effect last Tuesday. Fifteen sheriffs swiftly sued, challenging the law and the newly-created Office of Immigrant Trust. The sheriffs filed an emergency motion seeking to block New York state from voiding existing 287(g) agreements.

Milby said his county doesn't have a 287(g) agreement in place. According to the lawsuit, he took steps in 2025 to sign onto a warrant service officer version of the 287(g) program, where local police are trained to serve and execute administrative warrants on migrants in their local jails.

Milby said the lawsuit isn't about immigration.

"This is about the overreach of our governor deciding what's best for our local governments," he said. "I answer to the voters. I don't answer to the governor. I don't answer to the attorney general. I mean, what does Albany know about the local law enforcement needs of Wayne County? They don't."

The city has little power to say no

Governor Kathy Hochul has said this lawsuit is a "waste of taxpayer dollars" and that her office is confident courts will side with the state.

Roderick Hills Jr., a law professor at New York University, said she's probably right.

He said courts in previous cases have sided with states, saying they can impose their rules on cities and towns.

"The city has no right against the state that created it. Think of it as like cities are the children of the state, the state is the parent. You need the parents' consent to go on a field trip," he said.

A similar legal fight played out in 2017 in Texas over immigration policy.

A Texas law known as Senate Bill 4, was enacted that year banning "sanctuary cities," a term for local governments that do not enforce federal immigration laws. The state sued Travis County for failing to comply with the law. A federal appeals court later sided with the state and upheld most of the law.

Across the U.S., a number of showdowns are playing out, pitting local law enforcement leaders against states.

Seventeen sheriffs in Maryland sued the state over its 287(g) ban. FAIR is representing those sheriffs, too.

New Mexico's attorney general is asking a judge to force two county sheriffs to terminate their agreements with ICE.

The federal government has stepped in, as well. In June, the Justice Department sued Virginia and New York, in part, over these 287(g) bans.

While the lawsuit plays out, a dozen of the New York sheriffs who had signed ICE cooperation deals had their agreements dissolved or planned to dissolve them, as the new law requires.