The Trump administration’s deportation operation has increasingly turned to local law enforcement through partnerships established under the 287(g) program. In New York, Rensselaer County was the only county with such an agreement at the beginning of President Trump’s second term.

Since then, 12 other law enforcement agencies across the state have formed partnerships with federal immigration authorities. Those agreements deputize local officers to carry out civil immigration enforcement functions.

Gov. Kathy Hochul moved to shut that machinery down by signing the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act in May. The law took effect on August 25 and effectively nullified every 287(g) agreement in New York.

Rensselaer County Sheriff Kyle Bourgault responded by suing Hochul in federal court, refusing to comply and seeking an injunction against the law. Hochul and New York Attorney General Letitia James answered with a countersuit in state court.

“New York banned this practice because we saw exactly where it leads: racial profiling, families torn apart over a traffic stop, and entire communities afraid to call 911,” New York Immigration Coalition president and CEO Murad Awawdeh told the Prospect. “This new lawsuit is an attempt to drag New York backwards, and we won’t let that happen.”

Fourteen other New York county sheriff’s departments have joined Rensselaer County in the federal lawsuit. The plaintiffs argue that New York lacks standing to dissolve federally authorized 287(g) agreements and claim Albany is infringing upon sheriffs’ authority.

Broome County Sheriff Fred Akshar framed the dispute as a fight over the office itself, saying the lawsuit “really is about the associated independence and the constitutional authority that is granted to the office of the sheriff.”

Akshar was even blunter while speaking with reporters in July. “I don’t answer to Kathy Hochul. I don’t answer to Tish James. I answer to the great people of Broome County who afforded me an opportunity to administer this office.”

The case echoes the ideology of constitutional sheriffs, a movement that treats county sheriffs as the supreme legal authorities within their jurisdictions and accountable only to local voters. New York sheriffs previously challenged the state’s authority to define their powers, with several publicly admitting in 2022 that they would not enforce parts of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act.

Terry Diggory, co coordinator of the Saratoga Immigration Coalition, suspects that concerns about independence helped motivate Saratoga County Sheriff Jeffrey Brown to join the lawsuit. Saratoga County does not participate in the 287(g) program.

“Sheriffs are very zealous of their independence, and so the issue for the sheriffs that are joining in the suit is not simply whether they want to be involved in immigration enforcement,” Diggory said. “It’s also that they don’t want the state or anybody else to tell them what they can do or put restraints on their actions.”

Albany County also does not participate in the program and is not a plaintiff. Still, residents in both Saratoga and Albany Counties have reported informal cooperation between local police and federal immigration authorities at vehicle inspection checkpoints.

Diggory said local officers have established roadblocks to check seatbelts or vehicle registrations, with ICE sometimes present. Such cooperation fuels concerns that residents will see local police as an extension of federal immigration enforcement and become less willing to seek help after crimes.

In the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York, Judge Mae D’Agostino issued an order to show cause on August 27, accelerating consideration of the sheriffs’ injunction request. The New York Attorney General’s Office filed a brief opposing that request on September 9.

That brief argued D’Agostino had already addressed the plaintiffs’ contracts clause, supremacy clause, and preemption arguments when she rejected the Justice Department’s attempt to block the law in a separate lawsuit on August 3. The office also maintained that sheriffs derive their constitutional authority exclusively from the state.

The attorney general characterized the plaintiffs’ “reverse-commandeering theory” as “unprecedented,” “unsupported,” and “unpersuasive.” According to the brief, the theory disregards established doctrine against commandeering and the requirement that every 287(g) agreement remain consistent with state law.

The plaintiffs have until the close of business on September 16 to reply. Meanwhile, the New York Immigration Coalition and other advocacy groups are urging lawmakers to approve additional protections, including the New York for All Act.

“We still have work to do, but we’re pretty happy and content with where we ended up,” Awawdeh said of efforts to end local cooperation with civil immigration enforcement. Describing the Trump administration’s mass deportation operation, he added, “It’s about cruelty. That’s their point.”