Ending 287(g) Agreements

This page provides a comprehensive toolkit for organizing to end 287(g) agreements in your jurisdiction. Based on the ILRC’s “Ending 287(g): A Toolkit for Local Organizers” and successful campaigns across the country.

Understanding What You’re Fighting

The Three Models

Model	Where	What Happens	Risk to Community
JEM (Jail Enforcement)	Inside jails	People arrested on local charges have immigration status checked	Medium — only affects people already in custody
WSO (Warrant Service Officer)	Inside jails	Officers serve ICE administrative warrants	Medium — only affects people in custody
TFM (Task Force Model)	Anywhere	Officers enforce immigration during ANY duty	Highest — any police encounter can become immigration enforcement

Current Scale (2025)

ICE has signed over 1,000 Memorandums of Agreement:

522 TFM agreements across 35 states
381 WSO agreements across 35 states
132 JEM agreements across 28 states

This is a 641% increase from January 2025. ICE is aggressively expanding.

Why It’s Expanding

ICE is offering powerful incentives:

$10 billion in grants to participating agencies
Salary reimbursement for officers doing immigration work
Equipment, training, and resources
Political cover (“we’re just following federal law”)

Your counter-argument: These grants create long-term liability and dependency while undermining community trust.

Who Decides?

Primary Decision-Maker: The Sheriff

In most jurisdictions, the Sheriff signs the 287(g) Memorandum of Agreement with ICE. The Sheriff is usually:

Elected — Accountable to voters
Independent — May not answer to county commission on operational decisions
Powerful — Controls jail, deputies, and enforcement policies

Strategy: Direct pressure on the Sheriff, combined with pressure from county officials who control the budget.

Secondary Targets: County Commissioners/Board

County commissioners typically:

Approve budgets — Can defund 287(g) operations
Provide oversight — Can investigate costs and impacts
Pass resolutions — Can formally request the Sheriff end the agreement
Influence — Can apply political pressure

Strategy: Even if commissioners can’t force the Sheriff to act, they can make it politically costly to continue.

Other Leverage Points

County Attorney — Can advise on legal liability
Local prosecutors — Can refuse to accept cases tainted by 287(g)
City officials — Can pass resolutions, influence county politics
State officials — Can pass statewide bans

The Legal Arguments

These arguments help counter “we’re just following the law” defenses.

1. ICE Detainers Are NOT Mandates

Key point: ICE detainers are requests, not orders. Local agencies have no legal obligation to comply.

Legal basis:

Third Circuit Court of Appeals (Galarza v. Szalczyk, 2014): Honoring an ICE detainer without probable cause constitutes a new arrest
Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits have similar rulings
No federal law requires local agencies to hold people for ICE

Talking point: “The Sheriff can decline ICE detainers tomorrow without breaking any law. These are requests, not mandates.”

2. Fourth Amendment Violations

Key point: Holding someone beyond their release date without a warrant violates the Fourth Amendment.

Legal basis:

Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas County (2014): County liable for holding woman 19 hours on ICE detainer
Morales v. Chadbourne (2015): Officers personally liable for detainer holds
Multiple settlements in the millions

Talking point: “Every day we hold someone on an ICE detainer without a warrant, we’re exposing the county to a lawsuit.”

3. Civil Rights Violations

Key point: 287(g) programs have a documented history of racial profiling.

Evidence:

DOJ found systematic racial profiling in Maricopa County under Sheriff Arpaio’s TFM
65% of agencies with 287(g) agreements have documented civil rights violation records
TFM was suspended in 2012 specifically due to civil rights concerns before being resurrected

Talking point: “The Task Force Model was shut down once because of racial profiling. Why are we repeating that mistake?“

4. No Legal Requirement to Participate

Key point: 287(g) is entirely voluntary. There’s no legal requirement to sign or maintain an agreement.

Talking point: “Other counties have declined to participate. There’s no federal requirement that we do this.”

The Practical Arguments

1. Financial Cost

Reality: 287(g) costs money that ICE doesn’t fully reimburse.

Costs to the county:

Training officers (40+ hours per officer)
Overtime for immigration-related duties
Jail beds for ICE holds
Legal defense when sued
Settlement costs when you lose

ICE’s $10B grants: Sound good but:

Create dependency on federal funding
Come with strings attached
Can be cut at any time
Don’t cover lawsuit settlements

Talking point: “How much has this program cost the county? How much has ICE actually reimbursed?“

2. Public Safety Impact

Reality: When immigrants fear police, they don’t report crimes.

Evidence:

Major cities with sanctuary policies have lower crime rates on average
Studies show crime reporting drops in immigrant communities with aggressive enforcement
Domestic violence victims, witnesses to crime, and trafficking victims stay silent

Talking point: “When Maria is afraid to call 911, her abuser goes free. When Juan won’t report a robbery, the criminal targets someone else. This program makes everyone less safe.”

3. Community Trust

Reality: Police effectiveness depends on community cooperation.

Impact:

Community policing becomes impossible
Information sources dry up
Immigrant communities retreat from civic life
Children are afraid of police

Talking point: “The Sheriff’s job is to protect this community. How can deputies do that when half the county is afraid to talk to them?“

4. Diversion of Resources

Reality: Deputies doing immigration work aren’t doing local law enforcement.

Questions to ask:

How many deputy hours go to 287(g) activities?
What local crimes aren’t being investigated?
What calls for service are delayed?

Talking point: “We’re paying our deputies to do ICE’s job instead of investigating local crimes.”

Campaign Strategy

Phase 1: Research & Build (Weeks 1-4)

Know your enemy:

What model(s) does your jurisdiction use?
When was the agreement signed? When does it renew?
Who signed it (current or previous sheriff)?
What has it cost?
What impacts has it had?

Build your coalition:

Immigrant rights organizations
Faith communities
Civil liberties groups (ACLU)
Labor unions
Business groups
Public health advocates
Criminal justice reform groups

Gather stories:

Document personal impacts
Collect testimonies (with consent)
Track incidents and costs

Phase 2: Private Pressure (Weeks 5-8)

Meet with decision-makers:

Request meetings with Sheriff, commissioners, relevant staff
Present your case privately first
Ask for specific commitments
Document their responses

Build public support:

Op-eds and letters to the editor
Community forums
Educational events
Social media campaigns

Engage media:

Background briefings with reporters
Share data and stories
Pitch investigative coverage

Phase 3: Public Pressure (Weeks 9-12+)

Escalate visibility:

Attend every public meeting
Pack public comment periods
Organize rallies and protests
Direct action if appropriate

Political accountability:

Track and publicize official positions
Engage voters
Support challenger candidates if needed
Make this an election issue

Keep the pressure on:

Weekly call campaigns
Regular media coverage
Coalition coordination
Don’t let the issue fade

Specific Asks

When meeting with officials, ask for specific, concrete commitments:

For the Sheriff

“Decline to renew the 287(g) MOA when it expires.”
“End participation in the Task Force Model immediately.”
“Require a judicial warrant before honoring any ICE detainer.”
“Prohibit ICE from accessing the jail for interviews.”
“Stop notifying ICE of release dates.”
“Issue a public statement explaining why you’re making these changes.”

For County Commissioners

“Pass a resolution calling on the Sheriff to end the 287(g) agreement.”
“Remove funding for 287(g) operations from the Sheriff’s budget.”
“Hold public hearings on the costs and impacts of 287(g).”
“Request a formal report from the Sheriff on 287(g) activities.”
“Invite community testimony on the program’s impacts.”

For State Legislators

“Introduce/support a bill banning 287(g) agreements statewide.”
“Prohibit state resources from supporting 287(g) activities.”
“Require reporting on all local-federal immigration cooperation.”

For Federal Representatives

“Co-sponsor the PROTECT Immigration Act (H.R. 3451).”
“Vote against appropriations for 287(g) expansion.”
“Request GAO investigation into 287(g) civil rights compliance.”

If Your Jurisdiction Doesn’t Have 287(g) Yet

Prevent It

ICE is actively recruiting new agencies. Be proactive:

Pass preemptive resolutions — Have your city/county formally decline participation
Build relationships now — Know your officials before there’s a crisis
Monitor for signs — Watch for sheriff statements, budget requests, ICE meetings
Educate the community — Make sure people understand what 287(g) means

Warning Signs

Sheriff attending ICE conferences
Budget requests for “immigration enforcement” or “federal partnerships”
Political rhetoric about “illegal immigration” from local officials
ICE representatives meeting with local law enforcement

Resources

Toolkits

Legal Resources

Model Policies

Federal Legislation

PROTECT Immigration Act (H.R. 3451) — Would terminate all 287(g) agreements
Track your representatives’ positions

Find Your Jurisdiction

Success Stories

Los Angeles County, CA

Ended 287(g) after sustained community pressure, citing civil rights concerns and costs.

Cook County, IL

Passed comprehensive sanctuary ordinance limiting all ICE cooperation.

Denver, CO

Declined to renew 287(g), adopted policy requiring judicial warrants for ICE requests.

New York City, NY

Detainer policy requires judicial warrant and limits ICE access to jails.

Your community can be next.