287(g) Law: Models, Detainers, and Local Police Authority

The 287(g) program is a federal partnership that lets U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deputize state and local law enforcement officers to carry out specific immigration functions under ICE’s supervision. It takes its name from Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, codified at 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), which was added by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996. As of March 2026, ICE has signed 1,579 of these agreements with agencies across 39 states and two U.S. territories, making it the largest formal partnership between federal immigration authorities and local police in the country.¹

The program has expanded sharply since a January 2025 executive order instructed the Department of Homeland Security to pursue these agreements as aggressively as the law allows.²

How the Authority Works

Without a signed agreement, local police have no authority to enforce federal civil immigration law on their own. Each partnership rests on a written Memorandum of Agreement that has to spell out the specific powers a designated officer can exercise, how long that authority lasts, and which ICE supervisor oversees the officer’s work.³ The agency must also certify in writing that its officers have received adequate training in federal immigration law before they perform any delegated duty.

Officers acting under a 287(g) agreement are treated as operating under federal authority, which means the federal government can bear responsibility for their actions under the Federal Tort Claims Act.³ Either party can terminate the agreement at any time with written notice.

The Three Models

ICE operates 287(g) under three models, and the model a jurisdiction adopts determines what its officers can actually do. As of March 2026, the Task Force Model has 942 participating agencies, the Warrant Service Officer model has 479, and the Jail Enforcement Model has 158.¹

Jail Enforcement Model

Under the Jail Enforcement Model, designated officers screen people who have already been arrested and booked into a local jail. They interview individuals in custody, check federal databases for immigration history and prior deportation orders, and determine whether the person has a legal right to remain. When someone is identified as potentially removable, the officer can prepare a Notice to Appear (Form I-862), the charging document that opens formal removal proceedings before an immigration judge.⁴ The officer can also issue an immigration detainer. Because this model is limited to people already in custody on criminal charges, it does not involve street-level immigration stops.

Task Force Model

The Task Force Model gives officers immigration authority during their regular patrol and policing duties, not just inside a jail. ICE describes it as a “force multiplier.”¹ This is the broadest model and the one driving the program’s rapid growth; the January 2025 executive order specifically directed DHS to structure each agreement “in the manner that provides the most effective model for enforcing Federal immigration laws in that jurisdiction.”²

When officers can act on immigration authority during traffic stops and other routine encounters, the risk of racial profiling increases. Federal law requires all 287(g) officers to adhere to the same constitutional standards as federal agents.

Warrant Service Officer Model

The Warrant Service Officer model is the most limited version. Officers designated under it can serve two specific federal documents: Form I-200, an administrative arrest warrant, and Form I-205, a warrant of removal.⁵ They cannot interrogate people about their immigration status, enter data into federal systems, or conduct the detailed processing that jail enforcement officers perform. The role is essentially a handoff from local custody to ICE. Jurisdictions that want to participate without taking on the full administrative burden often choose this model.

Detainers and the 48-Hour Hold

One of the most consequential tools available under 287(g) is the immigration detainer. When a designated officer identifies someone in custody as potentially removable, the officer can issue a detainer, currently Form I-247A, asking the jail to keep holding the person for up to 48 hours (excluding weekends and federal holidays) beyond the point when they would otherwise be released on their criminal charges.⁶ That window gives ICE time to send agents to take custody.

The exclusion of weekends and holidays matters. Someone due for release on a Friday evening may see the 48-hour clock start on Monday morning, which can mean three or four extra days beyond the criminal release date.

A detainer is a request, not a command. In 2014, the Third Circuit held in Galarza v. Szalczyk that the federal regulation “merely authorizes the issuance of detainers as requests to local LEAs” and cannot compel a local agency to hold someone.⁷ A jail that voluntarily honors a detainer without probable cause for the extended detention can face Fourth Amendment liability. A federal court in California reinforced that point in Gonzalez v. ICE, holding that ICE violated the Fourth Amendment by issuing detainers based only on a foreign birthplace combined with the absence of citizenship records in federal databases.

Training and Certification

Every 287(g) officer must receive adequate training before exercising any delegated authority, and ICE covers the cost.¹ What that training looks like has changed. The Jail Enforcement Model and the original Task Force Model historically required a four-week, in-person program taught by ICE instructors, covering federal immigration law, civil rights standards, and use of federal databases. Officers had to pass all examinations with at least a 70 percent score and later complete a one-week refresher. When the current administration revived the Task Force Model in 2025, it replaced the in-person requirement with a 40-hour online course, lowering the barrier to entry for new agencies.

Certification is not permanent. Officers must go through periodic recertification, and only officers with active certification working for an agency with a valid agreement can perform 287(g) duties.

Who Pays

The statute says local officers perform 287(g) functions “at the expense of the State or political subdivision.”³ For years, that meant local taxpayers covered salaries, overtime, and jail housing for people held on detainers, while ICE paid only for training. That was one of the biggest reasons many agencies declined to participate.

That changed on October 1, 2025, when DHS began fully reimbursing participating agencies for the annual salary and benefits of each eligible trained 287(g) officer. The new policy also covers overtime costs up to 25 percent of an officer’s annual salary. Agencies can also earn quarterly performance bonuses for each eligible officer based on how many people the officer helps locate for ICE: $1,000 per officer for hitting 90 to 100 percent of targets, $750 for 80 to 89 percent, and $500 for 70 to 79 percent.⁸

Before the change, sheriffs and police chiefs had to justify spending local dollars on a federal mission. Now the financial pull runs the other direction, and it is a significant factor behind the program’s rapid expansion.

Can a Jurisdiction Refuse to Participate?

Not every local agency is free to join, even if it wants to. Several states have enacted laws restricting or prohibiting their local agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. These laws, often called sanctuary policies, can prevent a sheriff or police chief from signing a Memorandum of Agreement with ICE.

The legal ground here is contested. States and local governments generally have a constitutional basis for declining to participate in federal enforcement programs under the Tenth Amendment, which limits the federal government’s power to compel state officials to carry out federal directives. At the same time, the federal government has broad authority over immigration under the Constitution’s Naturalization Clause, and states cannot create their own immigration enforcement schemes.

In February 2025, the Attorney General issued a memorandum stating that “sanctuary jurisdictions” would lose access to Department of Justice federal funding, and the administration has initiated legal actions against specific jurisdictions for policies it says obstruct federal immigration enforcement. Local agencies in states with sanctuary laws face pressure from both directions: state law may prohibit participation while federal authorities threaten funding consequences for staying out.

Oversight and Community Input

Each 287(g) partnership is expected to maintain a steering committee bringing together leadership from the local agency, representatives from ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, and members of the public. These committees review enforcement activities conducted under the agreement and check compliance with the Memorandum of Agreement.⁹

The local agency must publish a notice at least 30 days before each steering committee meeting so community members can attend and give feedback.⁹ For a resident who wants specifics on how the program operates locally, including the number of detainers issued and the criminal histories of individuals processed, attending a steering committee meeting is the most direct route. The quality of these meetings varies. Some jurisdictions treat them as genuine forums for accountability. Others treat them as a compliance step.

1
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act
2
The White House. Protecting The American People Against Invasion
3
Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 USC 1357 – Powers of Immigration Officers and Employees
4
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Notice to Appear Form I-862
5
Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Immigration Enforcement Frequently Asked Questions
6
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Immigration Detainer – Notice of Action
7
Justia Law. Galarza v Szalczyk, No. 12-3991 (3d Cir. 2014)
8
Lindsey Graham, United States Senator for South Carolina. Graham Applauds Trump Administration’s New Reimbursement Opportunities for State and Local Law Enforcement Partnering with ICE
9
Department of Homeland Security. 287(g) End-of-Year Report