New York’s new law curbing local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement has set off a legal and political firefight, with 15 county sheriffs suing, one county defiantly refusing to back down, and Republican leaders arguing the measure endangers public safety by pulling vital tools from local law enforcement.
Gov. Kathy Hochul signed the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, which bars state and local agencies from maintaining 287(g) agreements with ICE, into law this week. Republicans say the move removes a proven tool that helps identify and detain dangerous illegal immigrants, and they are framing the battle as one over public safety and common-sense law enforcement. The law immediately became the focal point for clashes between Albany and counties that say they will not surrender agreements they rely on to keep communities safe.
Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman, the Republican nominee for governor, condemned the law sharply and tied it directly to public safety concerns. He argued that banning these agreements will result in more crimes and more victims, pointing to recent cases involving noncitizens as examples where ICE cooperation mattered. Blakeman’s stance reflects a broader Republican line: prioritizing local authority to work with federal partners to remove dangerous criminal aliens.
Fifteen county sheriffs, led by Rensselaer County Sheriff Kyle Bourgault, answered with a federal lawsuit challenging the ban. Their complaint claims state officials cannot constitutionally block elected sheriffs from entering agreements authorized by Congress, and that Albany is overreaching by trying to dismantle a federal tool. That lawsuit signals a coordinated legal push from law enforcement officials who say the change interferes with their sworn duty to protect residents.
Rensselaer County Executive Steve McLaughlin made the county’s position unmistakable and bluntly rejected state orders to abandon its 287(g) agreement. His comments were defiant and direct: “We don’t really care what this legislature did, we are not going to let them endanger our citizens. I dare you to confront me on this, governor. We’re not stopping.” That kind of language from local leaders underscores how deeply some counties view the law as an affront to local control and public safety.
Hochul’s administration pushed back, insisting the new law still allows cooperation with federal authorities in criminal and violent-crime investigations. A governor’s office spokesperson maintained Hochul’s “top priority remains public safety,” while disputing critics’ claims that the law removes all avenues for collaboration. Yet sheriffs and county executives say the specific loss of 287(g) authority materially weakens their ability to question and detain people suspected of violating federal immigration laws.
The state escalated the confrontation by filing suit against Rensselaer County’s sheriff to force the termination of the local 287(g) agreement, which has been in place since March 2020. Of the dozen New York agencies that had such agreements before the law, Rensselaer stands alone in refusing to signal an intent to dissolve its partnership with ICE. That refusal made the county the immediate target of state legal action, setting up a courtroom test of the law’s reach.
Legal drama is unfolding on multiple fronts: local sheriffs’ federal suit, the state’s lawsuit in state court against Rensselaer, and a separate challenge from the federal government. The Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit earlier in June contesting New York’s authority to curtail federal immigration enforcement through state statute. These overlapping cases mean the issue will likely be decided by judges weighing federal prerogatives against state statutes for months to come.
The political tone has hardened as well. Hochul publicly dared challengers to proceed with lawsuits aimed at blocking the law, telling critics, “And to those suing us, those trying to block the implementation of this law who’ve tried before and failed … I say, bring it on.” Republicans counter that the law is not an abstract policy debate but a direct, dangerous removal of tools used to arrest and detain criminal aliens.
Counties have taken different approaches: some, like Nassau, concluded they must comply with the statute for now despite opposition, while others, like Rensselaer, openly resist. Nassau’s Blakeman framed his position within a law-and-order ethos, saying he follows the rule of law even when he believes a law is wrong. Rensselaer’s officials, on the other hand, have been openly defiant, with one official reportedly telling state investigators they could “crumple it up and shove it.”
Republican leaders are trying to turn the dispute into a broader political argument about safety and priorities in Albany. They emphasize that this fight is not just about immigration procedure but about whether state government will limit the ability of local police to work with federal partners to remove dangerous offenders. That narrative aims to make the stakes clear to voters who care about crime and community protection.
With lawsuits pending in federal and state courts, a defiant county, and vocal Republican critics, the new law has triggered a full-scale showdown over immigration enforcement in New York. The coming legal rulings will determine whether Albany can curtail 287(g) agreements or whether local sheriffs and the federal government can preserve that cooperation. The dispute promises to keep immigration enforcement and public safety in the spotlight across the state for the foreseeable future.
“I want to be very clear about this law: This law is written in the blood of the victims, past, present and future. This law is completely misguided and will make our communities less safe.”
“We don’t really care what this legislature did, we are not going to let them endanger our citizens. I dare you to confront me on this, governor. We’re not stopping.”
Add comment