Key Takeaways
• Colorado ruling bars sheriffs from detaining solely on ICE detainers under 287(g) agreements.
• As of December 2024, ICE reported 287(g) agreements with 135 law enforcement agencies in 21 states.
• ACLU lawsuits argue state laws limit sheriff participation in federal immigration enforcement programs.
The debate over immigration enforcement in the United States 🇺🇸 often focuses on who has the power to enforce immigration laws. One of the central points in this debate is whether local sheriffs can and should help federal immigration agents. This issue has grown even more important with the use of the 287(g) program, which has sparked lawsuits and strong opinions from groups such as the ACLU and agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The ACLU, known for its focus on civil rights, has challenged sheriffs all over the country who take part in enforcing federal immigration laws. The group’s main argument centers on questioning both the legal authority and the fairness of programs like 287(g). At the same time, sheriffs and ICE argue that this cooperation keeps communities safe. This ongoing clash highlights how complex and emotional the topic of immigration is in the United States 🇺🇸.
What is the 287(g) Program?
The 287(g) program is named after part of a federal law called the Immigration and Nationality Act. It was created in 1996 by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. This program allows the Department of Homeland Security to allow certain police departments and sheriff’s offices to work directly with federal immigration agents.
Under 287(g), state or local officers can:
– Interview people about their immigration status
– Check people’s information against homeland security databases
– Issue detainers (requests to hold someone so ICE can pick them up)
– Enter data into ICE’s systems
– Prepare immigration paperwork such as Notices to Appear (these are notices for someone to appear at immigration court)
– Suggest voluntary departure (which lets someone leave the country on their own instead of through formal deportation)
– Move noncitizens into ICE custody
As of December 2024, ICE reported that it had 287(g) agreements with 135 law enforcement agencies in 21 states across the country. This means that in these areas, local police or sheriffs can act almost like federal immigration officers in certain situations.
Why Has the 287(g) Program Become So Controversial?
The 287(g) program has always raised questions. Supporters, including ICE, say that it allows local police to keep their communities safe by quickly removing people who have broken immigration laws or committed crimes. Critics, led by the ACLU, see it differently.
The ACLU says that programs like 287(g) encourage racial profiling, split families apart, and scare people from reporting crimes. The group also warns that these agreements may lead to wrongful arrests, especially when officers lack training or do not clearly know immigration law.
Some states have laws that limit how much local police can help enforce federal immigration rules. That is where many of these legal battles begin.
The ACLU’s Arguments Against Sheriff Participation
The ACLU has built a detailed legal case for why many sheriffs should not be allowed to join the 287(g) program or similar efforts. Their arguments fall into three main areas:
1. State Law Limitations
The ACLU often points to state laws that limit or outright forbid using local resources for certain federal purposes. For example, in Colorado, the ACLU sued Teller County Sheriff Jason Mikesell in 2019. The group said the sheriff was spending local tax money, meant for enforcing Colorado law, to instead carry out federal immigration duties through an agreement with ICE.
By doing this, the ACLU claimed, the sheriff was acting beyond the power given to him by state law. They argued that without clear approval from the Colorado Legislature, it was not legal for the sheriff to carry out the wishes of ICE.
2. Constitutional Concerns
The ACLU also says that holding or arresting someone based only on an ICE request often happens without a judge’s warrant. In many places, this can break state constitutions, which spell out protections against unlawful arrests. In the Colorado case, the ACLU represented six local taxpayers who argued that Sheriff Mikesell violated both state law and the Colorado Constitution by detaining people for ICE without a judge’s order.
3. Statutory Prohibitions
In some states, there are specific laws that stop local police from holding people just because ICE asks them to. If a state law says that only warrants signed by a judge count, then ICE’s “detainer” requests do not have the same power. The ACLU has pointed out these strict rules as an extra reason why sheriffs cannot legally work with ICE in this way.
Recent Rulings and What They Mean
The legal fight over 287(g) is not just about arguments; recent court decisions have changed what police and sheriffs can do.
Colorado’s Pivotal Case
One of the biggest wins for the ACLU came in Colorado. In July 2024, the Colorado Court of Appeals made a clear ruling: Colorado law does not allow sheriffs to hold people based on ICE detainers for civil immigration issues. The court said that parts of the 287(g) agreement were not legal in Colorado if they allowed holding people just for ICE.
Then, on January 29, 2025, a final court judgment came down. Sheriff Mikesell agreed that his office did not have authority to keep holding people after their local case was done, just because ICE asked. This ruling is important because it is the first in the country to say a sheriff broke state law by detaining people under a 287(g) agreement.
Other ACLU Challenges Nationwide
This case is not alone. In March 2025, the ACLU sued Carver County Sheriff in Minnesota for holding a non-citizen after the man had paid his bail, just so ICE could pick him up. Similar lawsuits have happened in other states, always aiming to limit local officers’ power to help with federal immigration arrests unless there is a judge’s warrant.
According to VisaVerge.com, these lawsuits and rulings are already causing sheriffs across the country to think twice before signing new agreements with ICE.
How Sheriffs and ICE Respond
Not everyone agrees with the ACLU. Some sheriffs, including Sheriff Mikesell in Colorado, say these lawsuits target small, underfunded police departments who are only trying to follow clear laws. Mikesell has said that his office is following “clear cut laws in Colorado,” arguing that federal law gives sheriffs some powers.
ICE, which manages the 287(g) program, continues to promote partnerships with local law enforcement. The agency says these agreements allow for better tracking and removal of noncitizens who may be dangerous or have criminal backgrounds.
ICE’s website shows how these programs are designed and what types of agreements local agencies can enter. For more detailed information about the program’s rules and the list of current partner agencies, you can visit the official ICE 287(g) program page.
What Does This Mean for Immigrants and Communities?
Court decisions like those in Colorado have a big effect on immigrants, families, and the towns where they live. When sheriffs are not allowed to hold someone just for ICE, immigrants may feel safer reporting crimes or seeking help from police without fear of being detained. This can make it easier for police and immigrant communities to trust each other.
For noncitizens who face only civil immigration issues (not criminal charges), these rulings offer extra protections. It means they are less likely to be held after paying bail or finishing a local jail sentence, unless ICE gets a judge to sign a warrant.
However, some people feel these rules make it harder to enforce immigration law, and worry that dangerous people could avoid deportation. The argument is ongoing, with both sides convinced that their approach is better for public safety and community trust.
The Bigger Picture: States, Feds, and Who Decides
The heart of the debate is about power—who gets to decide how immigration laws are enforced in the United States 🇺🇸. The federal government, through programs like the 287(g) program, wants help from local police forces because they know their communities best and have daily contact with people who may be affected by immigration laws.
But when state laws limit what local police can do, conflicts happen. The ACLU’s lawsuits often argue that state rules should come first when it comes to local officers’ duties and how taxpayer money is used. The group’s courtroom wins show that the answer might be different in each state, depending on local laws and attitudes.
For ICE and supportive sheriffs, the 287(g) program is a valuable tool in keeping the public safe and helping enforce the immigration laws Congress enacted. As the legal battles continue, counties and cities must weigh the risks and benefits of these agreements.
What’s Next for the 287(g) Program?
These cases are far from finished. As of now, the 287(g) program still exists, and ICE reports over a hundred active partnerships across the country. Many sheriffs remain in the program, even as lawsuits work their way through the courts.
Experts expect more lawsuits in states where laws limit local help for ICE. Some lawmakers may also try to change state laws to either make such help easier or harder. The results will likely shape how immigration enforcement gets carried out far into the future.
Conclusion and Where to Learn More
The debate over the 287(g) program shows just how deeply immigration law becomes tied up with state versus federal powers, questions about fairness, and how best to keep communities safe. Recent wins in court for the ACLU have changed the playing field, at least in states like Colorado and Minnesota, by making sure sheriffs can’t always help ICE after a local case ends—unless all the legal steps are followed.
The story of the 287(g) program is still unfolding, with new lawsuits, laws, and public debates shaping what comes next. One thing is clear: the balance between the power of local law enforcement, federal agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and groups like the ACLU will continue to affect people across the country.
If you want to dig deeper and see the list of local agencies working with ICE, or learn more about the program itself, you can visit the official 287(g) program page on the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement website.
As reported by VisaVerge.com, these developments are worth watching for anyone who cares about immigration, law enforcement, or the rights of all people living in the United States 🇺🇸. Whether you are an immigrant, an employer, or simply an interested citizen, understanding how these programs work can help you follow and join in on this important public conversation.
Learn Today
287(g) Program → A federal program letting local police work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to enforce certain immigration laws.
Detainer → A request from ICE asking local law enforcement to hold a person for federal immigration authorities after their local case ends.
Notice to Appear → A legal document given to noncitizens ordering them to appear in immigration court for deportation proceedings.
State Law Limitations → Rules by individual states restricting or prohibiting local police from enforcing certain federal laws or assisting federal agencies.
Civil Rights → The rights that protect individuals’ freedom and ensure equal treatment under the law, often cited in legal challenges.
This Article in a Nutshell
The ongoing debate over the 287(g) program focuses on whether sheriffs can or should assist federal immigration agents. Recent lawsuits, especially in Colorado and Minnesota, challenge local involvement. Legal battles shape how far sheriffs can cooperate with ICE, affecting immigrants’ rights, community trust, and the future of immigration enforcement policy.
— By VisaVerge.com
Read more:
• ICE Unleashes 287(g) Program on Local Police Forces
• 287(g) Program lets local police help Department of Homeland Security enforce immigration laws
• Trump administration expands 287(g) agreements with local police
• 287(g) immigration enforcement program expands to Mid-Michigan sheriffs
• University of Florida police to enforce immigration in 287(g) shift
