(HALLATIN COUNTY, MONTANA) Hundreds of residents, service providers, and local officials have weighed in on whether Gallatin County should deepen cooperation with federal immigration authorities. As of August 15, 2025, the county is debating proposals tied to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including possible participation in 287(g) agreements, which would let trained local officers carry out certain immigration tasks under federal supervision. The County Attorney has urged caution, warning of constitutional risks, added costs, and damage to public safety if civil immigration enforcement becomes a local duty.
County debate and legal findings
Gallatin County Attorney Audrey S. Cromwell issued a detailed legal opinion advising against entering an interlocal agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain people on civil immigration grounds. Her office cited several risks:
- Possible violations of constitutional rights.
- Legal liability for wrongful detention.
- Strains on county resources.
- Damage to trust between law enforcement and immigrant families.
The opinion also emphasized trade-offs for core local needs, noting that local time and money could shift away from behavioral health and housing instability if civil immigration enforcement became a county responsibility.
Supporters of deeper cooperation argue that ICE partnerships strengthen the rule of law and help remove people who pose a danger. But county data show the current scale is small: only about 5% of the jail population was flagged for ICE holds, suggesting existing procedures may already cover the limited cases that arise without expanding the county’s role.
Background on the program:
– The 287(g) program dates to the 1990s and allows state and local officers to perform certain immigration functions once trained and supervised by ICE.
– Backers view it as a force multiplier.
– Critics argue civil immigration enforcement can invite legal challenges when local agencies detain people based on federal requests rather than local charges.
In Gallatin County, the legal risk and community safety concerns have driven much of the recent opposition.
State pushes in Texas and Florida
While Gallatin County weighs costs and benefits, other states are moving in markedly different directions.
Texas:
– Passed legislation requiring sheriffs in roughly 234 of its 254 counties to request and enter 287(g) agreements with ICE.
– This mandate signals a broad, state-level push to involve local agencies in immigration control and could reshape jail operations across most of the state.
Florida:
– In early 2025, Governor Ron DeSantis convened a special legislative session focused on combating illegal immigration.
– Proposals included:
1. Requiring every law enforcement agency with more than 25 sworn officers to take part in 287(g).
2. Giving the governor power to suspend officials who refuse.
3. Designating a State Immigration Enforcement Officer to coordinate with federal authorities.
4. Expanding detention and transportation programs for unauthorized migrants.
Impacts on communities:
– State-level mandates can ripple quickly to immigrant families, employers, and schools.
– When local officers must screen for civil immigration issues, families may fear routine interactions like traffic stops.
– Advocates warn that such fear can reduce crime reporting and cooperation with police, hurting public safety.
– County officials also worry about staff time and extra costs, from jail space to transportation.
Federal drive and local pushback
A presidential order issued in January 2025 directed the Department of Homeland Security to maximize the use of 287(g) agreements, aiming to expand local cooperation with ICE while keeping federal oversight.
Federal rationale:
– Officials argue that expanding cooperation improves information sharing and helps identify people who may be removable under federal law.
Criticism and local concerns:
– The National Sheriffs’ Association criticized a federal list designating counties for greater cooperation as arbitrary and not transparent.
– Local leaders have warned that federal directives must respect local budgets, jail limits, and community priorities.
A wider split:
– Analysis by VisaVerge.com finds the country splitting into two broad paths:
– Some states/counties are leaning into enforcement, citing public safety and perceived federal gaps.
– Others, like Gallatin County, are pushing back because of legal risk, community trust, and the need to prioritize local issues (addiction services, housing).
Practical effects differ:
– Counties that enter 287(g) agreements tend to:
– Be more involved in civil immigration enforcement.
– Face more detention, court challenges, and higher operating costs.
– Counties that reject agreements may:
– Face federal pressure (including threats to grant funding).
– Maintain stronger ties with immigrant residents—ties officials say matter when parents witness a crime or workers report wage theft without fear of deportation.
National context:
– Use of 287(g) has risen and fallen with changes in the White House and Congress.
– In 2024–2025, federal leaders proposed expansions such as new removal-focused offices and involving the National Guard in enforcement.
– Other federal measures—boosting Border Patrol hiring or limiting Medicaid access for undocumented immigrants—point to a broader enforcement focus alongside local partnerships.
Local reactions in Gallatin County
Public engagement in Gallatin County has been intense. Voices include:
- Health providers, business owners, educators, and immigrant residents warning that cooperation with ICE beyond criminal matters could push families into the shadows.
- Law enforcement veterans saying 287(g) provides training and federal supervision that can help handle complex cases safely.
- Even some who support tough action against violent offenders asked the county to avoid civil immigration detention that could sweep in parents and workers without criminal convictions.
Key questions county officials are weighing:
1. Would closer cooperation with ICE improve safety in measurable ways, and at what cost to rights, budgets, and trust?
2. Would the small share of cases flagged today (only about 5% of the jail population) grow under a 287(g) model?
3. Would deputies’ time and county resources shift away from priorities like behavioral health and housing stability?
How these are answered will affect policy and daily life across the valley.
Resources and stakes
Residents who want to review federal program details can read ICE’s official 287(g) overview for information on training, supervision, and agreement types: https://www.ice.gov/identify-and-arrest/287g.
The stakes are clear: for immigrant children who need to feel safe going to school, for ranchers who rely on seasonal labor, for tenants worried about a knock at the door, and for deputies trying to keep the peace, Gallatin County’s choice will be felt in everyday ways.
A final data point the county is watching: about 5% of the jail population is currently flagged for ICE holds. That figure provides one measure of the present footprint—and a benchmark to determine whether the county’s role would remain limited or expand under a formal 287(g) framework.
This Article in a Nutshell
Gallatin County faces a decision: adopt 287(g) cooperation with ICE or prioritize local services. Audrey S. Cromwell warns legal risks, costs, and community trust erosion. With only about 5% flagged for ICE holds, officials weigh public safety benefits against constitutional and budgetary harms to residents.
