Fifteen New York sheriffs sued the state after Albany voided local cooperation with federal immigration officers, warning it fuels a revolving door of repeat offenders.
Story Highlights
- Fifteen sheriffs filed a federal lawsuit challenging New York’s ban on local-federal immigration cooperation.
- State leaders ordered all 287(g) agreements ended by August 25, 2026, and called the suit frivolous.
- Broome County’s sheriff says the law hurts safety and local control, and cited constitutional concerns.
- Broome officials warned of lost detainee-housing revenue tied to the policy change.
Sheriffs Challenge Albany’s 287(g) Ban In Federal Court
On August 25, 2026, fifteen New York sheriffs filed a lawsuit against Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James. The suit contests the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, which bans local cooperation with federal immigration authorities under section 287(g). Reports identify Broome County Sheriff Fred Akshar among the plaintiffs, and confirm the filing in federal court. The case argues Albany stripped sheriffs of lawful tools to protect communities and manage jails, while overriding county authority.
State leaders defended the ban and slammed the sheriffs’ case. The Attorney General and Governor issued a joint statement describing the lawsuit as a frivolous waste of taxpayer dollars. They stressed the law’s goal of building trust with immigrant communities and keeping local policing focused on state and local crimes. Their statement also underscored that any covered 287(g) agreement still in effect would be void and unenforceable as of the deadline.
What The Law Does And Why It Matters For Local Control
The Local Cops, Local Crimes Act directs counties and sheriffs to end 287(g) agreements and similar deals that allow local officers to perform federal civil immigration functions. Officials made the cutoff date clear: existing agreements had to end by August 25, 2026, with anything after that declared void. The order forced counties to unwind cooperation arrangements and jail contracts that had become part of their operations and budgets in recent years.
Broome County’s sheriff said Albany crossed a line. He argued the state’s action undercuts public safety and steps on both the New York and United States Constitutions. He also linked the immigration order to broader criminal justice changes he says weakened accountability. Those include cashless bail, discovery reform, and other policies he believes feed repeat arrests. Local reporting confirms he planned legal action and framed the move as government overreach before the deadline.
Fiscal Stakes And Public Safety Concerns On The Ground
County officials warned about real budget hits alongside safety risks. Coverage of the dispute reported Broome County could lose about $2.2 million tied to housing immigration detainees after the state ban. That figure reflects how jail contracts and cooperation deals supported local staffing and services. The loss compounds the practical strain sheriffs describe as they juggle court mandates, inmate care, and safety with fewer tools and resources after Albany’s changes.
#LADYQNEWS #LADYQNEWS
BREAKING: 🚨 A New York sheriff puts Kathy Hochul's sanctuary policies on blast, revealing what law enforcement is forced to do when ICE asks for help capturing criminal migrants.Rep. Jim Jordan: When ICE notifies you, sends a detainer, in New York what do… pic.twitter.com/LZw2YW7l35
— Lady Q (@LadyQNews) September 15, 2026
The sheriffs’ suit is not isolated spin. Multiple outlets reported the coordinated filing by fifteen sheriffs, confirming a broad frontline pushback to the state’s order. While the state insists the law improves trust and focuses police on local crime, sheriffs counter that it blocks common-sense cooperation that helps stop offenders who cycle through the system. The case now asks a federal judge to decide if Albany can bar local leaders from working with federal partners this way.
Competing Claims: Safety Versus “Sanctuary” Rules
Governor Hochul has said judges should use recent bail-law changes to curb the repeat-offender cycle. She has framed her public-safety approach as comprehensive and collaborative with law enforcement. Those statements show Albany’s view that reforms and the 287(g) ban can coexist with safety. But sheriffs argue results are what count, and say local officers need every lawful tool to detain and transfer offenders who pose risks, regardless of immigration politics.
What To Watch Next In The Courts
The lawsuit challenges the 287(g) ban on constitutional grounds and asks the court to restore local discretion. The record includes a paper trail: state letters to agencies, an investigative demand, and the statewide termination directive. The judge will weigh state authority to set uniform rules against counties’ claims of safety harms, fiscal losses, and interference with their duties. Until then, sheriffs must comply with the ban while they seek relief in federal court.
Sources:
thegatewaypundit.com, pressconnects.com, wbng.com, governor.ny.gov, cnycentral.com, npr.org, wskg.org
