New York State Attorney General Letitia James filed a state court lawsuit Thursday seeking to terminate Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Office’s agreement with ICE, accusing Sheriff Kyle Bourgault of violating the recently passed Local Cops, Local Crimes Act. The lawsuit sets up a legal collision between state immigration policy and local law enforcement defiance—both in state court and in parallel federal litigation.
What changed
New York’s Local Cops, Local Crimes Act bars law enforcement agencies in the state from maintaining 287(g) agreements with ICE. The Attorney General sued Bourgault for violating this law. Rensselaer County has had a 287(g) agreement since 2018, which allows sheriff’s deputies to identify immigrants in the county jail and initiate immigration proceedings against them on behalf of ICE.
Twelve other jurisdictions had 287(g) agreements with ICE, but the Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Office is the only one that refused to terminate their contract.
The lawsuit also comes with financial teeth: Rensselaer County Sheriff’s Office will be unable to receive state grant funding because of its decision to keep the 287(g) agreement, since law enforcement agencies must be in compliance with state law to receive funding from state grant programs.
Why it matters
You need to understand the competing legal theories at play here:
State perspective: The ban is a state-police-practice rule; the state argues it has the authority to set conditions on how local law enforcement (funded partly by the state) cooperates with federal immigration authorities.
Local perspective: Bourgault and 14 other sheriffs sued New York State in federal court, challenging the ban as unconstitutional interference with local decision-making. Nassau County is also expected to join the lawsuit.
For practitioners: If you represent a client in custody in Rensselaer County, the enforceability of the 287(g) agreement is now in flux. The state wants it terminated; the county insists it will keep it. Either the state court or the federal court (likely the federal court eventually) will decide who wins. Until then, you must assume the agreement remains in effect and plan accordingly—but flag the litigation risk to your client.
Way forward
- Verify custody status immediately: If your client is held in a Rensselaer County facility, confirm whether ICE has been notified or whether an immigration detainer is in place. The litigation does not suspend the agreement; it remains active unless a court orders otherwise.
- Monitor federal litigation: Track the sheriffs’ federal lawsuit. A federal court decision striking down the ban or upholding it will reshape the landscape across New York; follow the federal docket or watch for appeals.
- Counsel clients on timing: Any I-bond or early release motion should account for ICE’s potential use of the 287(g) agreement while it remains in force. Do not assume the state’s lawsuit will succeed before your client’s custody decision is final.
- Prepare for change: If the state wins the state court case, the county may be forced to terminate the agreement, which would protect clients from ICE custody-transfer initiations at that facility going forward.
Disclaimer
Fola Form is a software company, not a law firm, and this article is not legal advice. Every immigration practitioner should consult a licensed attorney in their jurisdiction before relying on this summary. Policy and litigation outcomes can change without notice. Verify all claims against the primary source and applicable law before advising clients.