A growing coalition of local law enforcement leaders and lawmakers across New York has escalated a high-stakes federal lawsuit aimed at overturning a recently enacted state law that prohibits local agencies from entering into formal civil immigration enforcement contracts with the federal government.
The renewed legal push was highlighted during a news conference on Tuesday at the New York State Sheriffs' Association headquarters in Albany. Local sheriffs, state lawmakers, and immigration policy advocates convened to voice unified resistance against the state statute, which took effect last month and bars congressionally authorized coordination compacts between local, state, and federal law enforcement bodies.
The public demonstration unfolded shortly after attorneys representing the plaintiffs filed an extensive legal brief in the U.S. District Court in Albany. The legal filing represents the latest development in what both sides anticipate will become an extended judicial dispute over the limits of state authority regarding local cooperation with federal immigration agencies.
The litigation is being spearheaded on behalf of 15 New York sheriffs by Mateo Forero-Norena, a Washington, D.C.-based attorney with the Federation for American Immigration Reform. The advocacy organization is providing its legal counsel to the participating county sheriffs free of charge as the case proceeds through federal court.
During the Albany briefing, Forero-Norena emphasized that local voters entrusted their county sheriffs to make independent determinations regarding community safety. He argued that the newly enacted state legislation unlawfully overrides the discretionary authority of constitutional law enforcement officers who had established agreements designed to address public safety needs within their respective jurisdictions.
Rensselaer County is serving as the primary plaintiff in the legal challenge, having made history in 2018 as the first municipality in New York to formalize an agreement with federal immigration authorities. Rensselaer County Executive Steven F. McLaughlin asserted that the lawsuit holds significance reaching far beyond county lines and expressed confidence that the dispute could eventually reach the U.S. Supreme Court on constitutional grounds.
Although the lawsuit involves more than a dozen county sheriffs, it has not received an official endorsement from the statewide New York State Sheriffs' Association. The broader organization represents 58 county sheriffs across the state, the majority of whom have historically chosen not to maintain formal contractual arrangements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
The legal action has nevertheless attracted support from county officials who do not currently maintain active federal agreements. Jefferson County Sheriff Jeff Coffey explained that his decision to join the lawsuit stemmed from concerns that the state law prioritizes political maneuvering over sound law enforcement policy, warning that such measures undermine local public safety.
The plaintiffs' court filing on Tuesday arrived in direct response to a motion to dismiss submitted on Sept. 9 by the New York State Attorney General’s office. In seeking to dismantle the state's dismissal effort, the sheriffs' legal team cited a recent ruling by a federal judge in Virginia who struck down a comparable state prohibition after determining that it breached the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
Conversely, the state attorney general's office maintains that the statute is legally sound, pointing to long-standing U.S. Supreme Court precedent establishing that states maintain the authority to regulate or impair contractual arrangements when acting in the interest of public health and overall safety.
State legal representatives have argued that when municipal and county police officers dedicate operational time and manpower to civil immigration functions, it inevitably drains critical resources away from standard local crime prevention duties. Under this reasoning, state attorneys contend that such federal entanglements produce a net negative effect on neighborhood safety.
The legislation reflects the stated policy objectives of Gov. Kathy Hochul's administration, which seeks to prevent state and municipal law enforcement agencies as well as other government employees from assisting in civil immigration operations through formal ICE compacts. State officials have consistently maintained that civil immigration enforcement falls outside the core scope of local policing responsibilities.
In their court documents, however, the participating sheriffs pushed back against the state's characterization of their operational practices. The plaintiffs stated that their departments do not engage in broad civil immigration actions that are detached from criminal enforcement, noting that their coordination occurs specifically in connection with individuals who have already been charged with criminal offenses.
The federal authority at the core of the legal dispute rests on Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Originally incorporated under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 during President Bill Clinton's administration, the statute was later revised in 2002 following the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security, formally enabling the federal agency to draft written agreements that authorize qualified local personnel to execute designated immigration functions.
The county sheriffs and supporting Republican lawmakers maintain that housing federal detainees under these formal arrangements does not jeopardize public safety or divert local resources from combating unrelated criminal conduct within their communities.
The sheriffs' lawsuit is unfolding alongside parallel legal actions, including a separate federal challenge brought against the state of New York by the U.S. Department of Justice in June. The district court is now expected to review the competing filings before determining whether to schedule a formal hearing or rule on the validity of the state statute.
(0)