As states and the federal government continue to clash over immigration enforcement, New York has become a new front in the debate over how much local police should cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. That conflict sharpened on August 25, 2026, when 15 New York sheriffs sued Gov. Kathy Hochul over a law that bars local agencies from keeping formal ICE cooperation agreements. Hochul answered at a public event the same day, saying the law would be enforced and telling opponents, “Bring it on.”
Fifteen sheriffs filed suit as New York’s new ICE agreement ban took effect
Fifteen county sheriffs filed the lawsuit in federal court on August 25, the same day New York’s Local Cops, Local Crimes Act took effect, according to Times Union, NY1 and a litigation announcement from the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which is representing the sheriffs. The suit challenges the state’s ban on Section 287(g) agreements, which allow local agencies to partner with ICE on certain immigration-enforcement functions.
The case was led by Rensselaer County Sheriff Kyle Bourgault, and the sheriffs also sought emergency relief to block enforcement while the case proceeds, according to FAIR and coverage by NY1. Hochul responded publicly that any sheriff or police department that continued an agreement with ICE in violation of the law would face legal action, and in the same appearance said the state’s law had already survived an earlier court test and that challengers should “bring it on,” according to a state transcript distributed publicly and reporting by WXXI.
The broader legal fight was already underway before the sheriffs sued. On June 23, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice filed its own challenge to New York’s new immigration-related laws, including the prohibition on cooperative 287(g) agreements, according to the Justice Department and Hochul’s office. That means the sheriffs’ case enters a dispute that already includes parallel state-federal litigation over the same law.
The lawsuit reflects resistance from parts of upstate and suburban New York, where some sheriffs and county leaders have argued that the law interferes with jail operations and federal coordination. NY1 reported that prior to 2025, Rensselaer County was the only county with this type of agreement, while more agencies later entered similar arrangements as federal immigration partnerships expanded.
What is confirmed is that New York directed local agencies with 287(g) agreements to dissolve them by August 25, 2026, and that the state separately moved against Rensselaer County after officials there did not comply, according to Hochul’s office and Times Union. The state announced a lawsuit against the Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Office on August 27, saying the county had failed to terminate its agreement as required by law.
What is not yet fully known is the complete operational effect on every county jail or sheriff’s office that had some form of ICE-related arrangement. Public reporting indicates that at least 12 entities had received compliance notices from the attorney general’s office in July, but the state has not publicly released a comprehensive county-by-county breakdown of how each agency changed its policies after the deadline.
Hochul has framed the new law as a public-safety measure intended to keep local police focused on local crime rather than federal civil immigration work. In state announcements from January, May and June, her administration said the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act was designed to stop ICE from “co-opting” local law enforcement and to direct local resources toward community policing and criminal matters rather than civil immigration detention.
The sheriffs and their allies are making a different legal argument. According to FAIR’s litigation statement and court descriptions cited by local outlets, they contend the law unlawfully restricts independently elected sheriffs and conflicts with federal authority that authorizes 287(g) partnerships. The U.S. Justice Department’s June complaint similarly argued that New York was attempting to block federally authorized cooperation agreements.
For New York residents, the immediate result is not a change to federal immigration law, but a court fight over whether local sheriffs can continue acting under formal ICE agreements. The state has said it will enforce the ban, and a federal judge has set a briefing schedule on the sheriffs’ request for emergency relief, with the next filings due in early September, according to Times Union and Patch. Until a court rules otherwise, New York’s ban on local 287(g) agreements remains in effect.