A coalition of more than a dozen county sheriffs across New York, alongside state lawmakers and immigration reform advocates, is intensifying a federal legal challenge against a recently enacted state law that prohibits local law enforcement from entering into cooperative civil immigration agreements with federal authorities.
The group gathered on Tuesday at the headquarters of the New York State Sheriffs' Association in Albany to publicly reaffirm their commitment to the litigation. Their public demonstration followed the submission of a critical legal brief filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York in Albany, marking the latest phase in an escalating fight over the boundaries of local law enforcement authority and state oversight.
The contested statute, which took effect last month, outlaws congressionally authorized partnerships between federal immigration officials and local or state entities. Under the measure, state and municipal law enforcement agencies are barred from maintaining formal contracts that facilitate coordination with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement regarding civil immigration matters.
The ongoing federal lawsuit represents 15 New York sheriffs and is being spearheaded by the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a Washington, D.C.-based advocacy organization. Mateo Forero-Norena, an attorney representing the organization, confirmed that his group is providing legal counsel to the plaintiff sheriffs at no expense to their respective counties.
Forero-Norena emphasized that the litigation is rooted in preserving the autonomous decision-making power of locally elected officials. He argued that county sheriffs are constitutional officers chosen by local voters to determine the best public safety strategies for their jurisdictions, asserting that the state government in Albany is improperly nullifying those local determinations.
Although the Albany press conference was held at the state Sheriffs' Association headquarters, the organization itself—which represents all 58 sheriffs across New York—has not officially sanctioned or joined the litigation. A majority of the association's member sheriffs do not maintain formal coordination agreements with ICE.
The legal action is being led by Rensselaer County, which in 2018 became the first jurisdiction in New York to formalize an agreement with federal immigration authorities. Rensselaer County Executive Steven F. McLaughlin expressed confidence in the sheriffs' legal standing on Tuesday, predicting that the controversy could ultimately establish nationwide jurisprudence.
McLaughlin stated that the underlying constitutional questions could carry the dispute all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. He maintained that the plaintiffs expect to prevail because state statutes cannot override foundational protections enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.
The coalition challenging the ban includes department leaders who do not currently hold agreements with federal immigration authorities. Jefferson County Sheriff Jeff Coffey explained that he chose to join the litigation because he believes the state measure is driven by partisan politics rather than sound public safety policy, stating he refused to allow his constituents' safety to be compromised by an ideological agenda.
Other regional leaders, including Saratoga County Sheriff Jeff Brown, participated in the Albany briefing to demonstrate unified opposition alongside legislative allies. The participants framed the legal action as an essential pushback against state-level mandates that limit local operational autonomy.
The legal brief submitted on Tuesday serves as a formal reply to a motion to dismiss filed on September 9 by the New York State Attorney General’s Office. In their counterarguments, attorneys for the sheriffs pointed to a recent decision by a federal judge in Virginia, which struck down a comparable state prohibition on ICE contracts after finding that it violated the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution by unconstitutionally impairing existing contractual obligations.
Conversely, the New York Attorney General’s Office maintains that the state acted well within its constitutional purview. State attorneys argue that established U.S. Supreme Court precedent permits state governments to modify or restrict contracts whenever necessary to protect public health and safety, asserting that compelling local officers to assist in civil immigration enforcement diverts critical attention and resources away from local crime prevention.
Public statements from Gov. Kathy Hochul and the text of the statute emphasize that the measure was designed specifically to prevent municipal personnel and police agencies from expending public resources on civil immigration enforcement. However, filings from the plaintiff sheriffs counter that their departments do not engage in civil immigration enforcement unless it is directly connected to individuals facing criminal charges.
The dispute over New York's legislation is not limited to the sheriffs' lawsuit. The U.S. Department of Justice initiated its own legal action against the state in June, challenging the state's authority to restrict federally authorized immigration partnerships.
At the heart of the national and state-level debate is Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Originally added through the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 during the Clinton administration, the provision was later amended in 2002 following the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, empowering federal officials to enter into voluntary agreements allowing trained local officers to carry out designated immigration functions.
As the federal court in Albany prepares to evaluate the competing motions, the outcome is poised to determine whether New York can enforce its statewide restrictions or whether county sheriffs will retain the power to partner with federal agencies to house detainees and coordinate law enforcement operations.
(0)