South Dakota officials call for expanded role in immigration enforcement

Key Takeaways

• South Dakota seeks 287(g) agreements and bans sanctuary cities starting July 1, 2025, enhancing immigration enforcement.
• The 287(g) program allows state officers to aid ICE in identifying and processing immigration violators under federal supervision.
• New policies aim to target violent crime and drug trafficking but raise civil rights and community trust concerns.

Executive Summary

In May 2025, South Dakota’s top officials—Governor Larry Rhoden and Attorney General Marty Jackley—visited the U.S. southern border to observe federal immigration enforcement and announce new state initiatives. Their actions signal a significant policy shift: South Dakota is seeking a formal role in immigration enforcement through the federal 287(g) program and is implementing a statewide ban on sanctuary cities effective July 1, 2025. These measures aim to strengthen public safety by targeting violent crime and drug trafficking linked to illegal immigration, but they also raise important questions about civil rights, community trust, and the balance of state and federal authority. This policy brief examines the background, analyzes the implications, and provides evidence-based recommendations for South Dakota policymakers, law enforcement, and affected communities.

Introduction

South Dakota is entering a new phase in its approach to immigration enforcement. Recent visits by Governor Rhoden and Attorney General Jackley to the U.S.-Mexico border highlight the state’s intention to play a more active role in supporting federal immigration authorities. Their directive for state agencies to seek 287(g) authority and the passage of a sanctuary city ban mark a clear policy direction: South Dakota will no longer leave immigration enforcement solely to federal agencies.

This policy brief provides a comprehensive overview of these developments, explains the 287(g) program, analyzes the potential impacts on public safety and immigrant communities, and offers practical recommendations for effective and fair implementation.

Background

State Visits and Policy Announcements

On May 20–21, 2025, Governor Larry Rhoden visited Eagle Pass, Texas, while Attorney General Marty Jackley traveled to Yuma, Arizona. Both met with National Guard troops and federal officials to observe border operations and discuss how South Dakota could support federal immigration enforcement. Following these visits, they announced a directive for state agencies—including the South Dakota Highway Patrol and Division of Criminal Investigation (DCI)—to seek formal agreements under the 287(g) program. This move comes just weeks before a new state law banning sanctuary cities takes effect on July 1, 2025.

What Is the 287(g) Program?

The 287(g) program was established in 1996 under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act. It allows state and local law enforcement agencies to partner with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to perform certain federal immigration enforcement functions. Under this program, trained state officers can identify, detain, and process individuals suspected of violating federal immigration law, all under ICE supervision. More information about the program is available on the official ICE 287(g) page.

Sanctuary City Ban

South Dakota’s new law prohibits any local government from adopting policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. This means all jurisdictions must honor ICE detainers and share information about immigration status as required by federal law. The law takes effect July 1, 2025, and is part of a broader trend among states seeking to eliminate sanctuary policies.

Analysis

State-Federal Cooperation: Expanding Enforcement Authority

By seeking 287(g) agreements, South Dakota law enforcement agencies would gain authority to enforce certain federal immigration laws. This expansion goes beyond traditional state policing and allows state officers to:

• Identify and detain individuals suspected of violating federal immigration law
• Process immigration paperwork and initiate removal proceedings under ICE supervision
• Focus on cases involving violent crime and drug trafficking, as emphasized by Attorney General Jackley

Governor Rhoden stated, “This agreement will enable the Highway Patrol to assist in the identification and apprehension of illegal aliens who may pose a risk to public safety in South Dakota.” According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, such partnerships are becoming more common in Republican-led states seeking to address concerns about crime and border security.

Public Safety and Crime Prevention

Supporters of the policy argue that increased state involvement is necessary to address violent crime and drug trafficking linked to illegal immigration. Attorney General Jackley highlighted that DCI agents will focus on cases involving violent criminals and drug dealers with a South Dakota connection, aiming to “force multiply” federal enforcement efforts. For example, earlier this month, ICE arrested eight individuals in Madison, South Dakota, for using fake identification.

Impact on Immigrant Communities

While the stated goal is to target serious crime, increased state involvement in immigration enforcement may have broader effects:

• Heightened fear and mistrust among immigrant populations, potentially discouraging cooperation with law enforcement
• Risk of racial profiling and civil rights violations, especially if enforcement is not carefully targeted and supervised
• Potential for community members to avoid reporting crimes or seeking help, undermining public safety

Civil liberties groups, including the ACLU, warn that 287(g) programs have historically led to constitutional challenges related to Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections.

Implementation Process: Step-by-Step

1. Application: South Dakota Highway Patrol and DCI apply to ICE for 287(g) authority.
2. Agreement: ICE reviews the application and, if approved, enters into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with the state agency.
3. Training: Designated state officers undergo ICE training on federal immigration law and procedures.
4. Enforcement: Trained officers are authorized to perform specified immigration enforcement functions under ICE supervision.
5. Oversight: ICE retains oversight and may revoke the agreement if federal standards are not met.

Sanctuary City Ban: Compliance Requirements

• All local governments must repeal or avoid policies that restrict cooperation with ICE.
• Law enforcement must honor ICE detainers and share information about immigration status as required by federal law.

Quantitative Data

• Border Apprehensions: In late January 2025, U.S. Border Patrol apprehended 4,577 individuals in one week—a 55% decrease from the previous week’s 10,281, reflecting broader national trends in border enforcement.
• ICE Enforcement in South Dakota: Eight individuals arrested in Madison for using fake identification earlier this month.

Legal and Civil Rights Considerations

The expansion of state and local immigration enforcement under 287(g) has prompted concerns about:

• Racial profiling: Officers may target individuals based on appearance or language rather than evidence of criminal activity.
• Due process: Immigrants may face detention or removal without adequate legal protections.
• Community trust: Fear of immigration enforcement can discourage immigrants from cooperating with police, reporting crimes, or accessing public services.

The ACLU and other advocacy groups have challenged similar programs in other states, citing constitutional protections.

Federal-State Dynamics

South Dakota’s move aligns with a broader national trend, especially in Republican-led states, to assert a larger state role in immigration enforcement amid perceived federal inaction. ICE and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) generally welcome state cooperation but maintain oversight and set standards for participation in programs like 287(g).

Policy Options

Option 1: Full Implementation of 287(g) and Sanctuary City Ban

• Proceed with current plans to obtain 287(g) authority for the Highway Patrol and DCI.
• Enforce the sanctuary city ban statewide, requiring all jurisdictions to cooperate fully with ICE.

Pros:
– Increases state capacity to address crime linked to illegal immigration.
– Supports federal agencies facing resource constraints.
– Sends a strong message about public safety priorities.

Cons:
– May increase fear and mistrust in immigrant communities.
– Risk of civil rights violations and potential legal challenges.
– Could divert local law enforcement resources from other priorities.

Option 2: Targeted Implementation with Safeguards

• Limit 287(g) enforcement to cases involving violent crime and drug trafficking, as stated by Attorney General Jackley.
• Establish clear guidelines and oversight to prevent racial profiling and protect civil rights.
• Provide community outreach and education to explain the policy and address concerns.

Pros:
– Focuses resources on the most serious threats to public safety.
– Reduces risk of overreach and negative impacts on immigrant communities.
– Builds trust through transparency and accountability.

Cons:
– May be seen as insufficient by those seeking broader enforcement.
– Requires investment in training, oversight, and community engagement.

Option 3: Delay or Reconsider Participation in 287(g)

• Postpone formal agreements with ICE until further study of potential impacts.
• Consult with stakeholders, including immigrant communities, law enforcement, and civil rights organizations.
• Explore alternative approaches to public safety that do not involve expanded immigration enforcement.

Pros:
– Allows time to assess risks and benefits.
– Reduces potential for negative community impacts.
– Encourages inclusive policymaking.

Cons:
– May be viewed as inaction by those concerned about crime and border security.
– Misses opportunity to support federal enforcement efforts.

Recommendations

Based on the analysis above, the following evidence-based recommendations are offered for South Dakota policymakers and law enforcement:

1. Implement 287(g) Authority with Clear Limits and Oversight

• Restrict enforcement to serious crimes: Focus 287(g) activities on individuals involved in violent crime and drug trafficking, as publicly stated by state officials.
• Establish independent oversight: Create a review board—including community members and legal experts—to monitor enforcement practices and address complaints.
• Require regular reporting: Agencies should publish data on 287(g) enforcement, including the number of individuals detained, reasons for detention, and outcomes.

2. Protect Civil Rights and Prevent Racial Profiling

• Mandate anti-bias training: All officers participating in 287(g) must complete training on civil rights, anti-discrimination, and constitutional protections.
• Develop clear protocols: Set guidelines for when and how officers may inquire about immigration status, ensuring actions are based on evidence, not appearance or language.

3. Engage and Inform Communities

• Conduct outreach: Hold public meetings and provide multilingual materials to explain the new policies, answer questions, and address concerns.
• Partner with community organizations: Work with local groups to build trust and encourage cooperation with law enforcement.

4. Monitor and Evaluate Policy Impacts

• Track outcomes: Collect and analyze data on crime rates, community trust, and legal challenges related to the new enforcement measures.
• Adjust policies as needed: Be prepared to revise enforcement practices based on evidence and community feedback.

5. Ensure Legal Compliance and Access to Counsel

• Inform detainees of their rights: Provide clear information about legal rights and access to counsel for individuals detained under 287(g).
• Refer to legal resources: Encourage those affected to seek help from organizations such as the American Immigration Lawyers Association or local bar associations.

Conclusion

South Dakota’s decision to seek a larger role in immigration enforcement through the 287(g) program and a statewide sanctuary city ban marks a significant policy shift with wide-ranging implications. While the stated goal is to enhance public safety by targeting violent crime and drug trafficking, these measures also carry risks for civil rights, community trust, and effective law enforcement. Careful implementation, clear limits, strong oversight, and ongoing community engagement are essential to ensure that the policy achieves its goals without unintended harm.

For more information on the 287(g) program and current immigration enforcement policies, visit the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 287(g) page.

Actionable Takeaways

• Law enforcement agencies should prepare for ICE training and develop clear protocols for 287(g) enforcement.
• Local governments must review and update policies to comply with the sanctuary city ban by July 1, 2025.
• Community organizations should educate immigrants about their rights and available legal resources.
• Individuals seeking legal help can contact the American Immigration Lawyers Association or local bar associations for assistance.

South Dakota’s evolving approach to immigration enforcement will shape the state’s public safety landscape and its relationship with immigrant communities for years to come. Ongoing dialogue, transparency, and accountability will be key to balancing security with fairness and justice.

Learn Today

287(g) Program → A federal program allowing state and local law enforcement to enforce certain immigration laws under ICE supervision.
Sanctuary City → A local jurisdiction limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement to protect undocumented immigrants.
ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) → Federal agency responsible for enforcing immigration laws and detaining individuals violating immigration statutes.
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) → A formal contract between federal and state agencies outlining enforcement roles under the 287(g) program.
Detainer → A request by ICE for local authorities to hold an individual suspected of immigration violations.

This Article in a Nutshell

South Dakota’s new immigration policy includes 287(g) enforcement authority and a sanctuary city ban, focusing on violent crime. This shift may improve public safety but threatens immigrant trust, requiring careful oversight to protect civil rights and ensure effective community cooperation.
— By VisaVerge.com

Read more:

• Immigration and Customs Enforcement steps up arrests at immigration courts
• Florida universities to assist ICE with campus immigration enforcement
• Iowa sheriff declines immigration enforcement partnership over sanctuary concerns
• U.S. Border travel tightens as immigration enforcement rules change
• Immigration Enforcement Raises New Civil Liberties Questions in US