YOUR REPRESENTATIVES SHOULD HEAR FROM You

The 9 Cooperation Standards

Nine things a legislator can pass and a citizen can say on the phone. Click any standard to see what "exists" vs. "enforceable" actually means under methodology v3.3.

1. Personnel & Resource Limits

   State officers, money, equipment, facilities, and communications are prohibited from federal civil immigration enforcement use. Every state-funded resource stays out of federal operations.
   Exists (1/2)

   Partial: one dimension covered (personnel only OR resources only), or both with major carveouts. The framework is there but it leaks.

   Enforceable (2/2)

   Both personnel and resources covered statewide. Binds state and local agencies. Limited or no carveouts. Anchor states: CA, IL, CO, WA.

   Why it matters

   Federal civil enforcement has limited independent infrastructure in most states. It runs on state and local personnel, state budgets, and state facilities. Pull that infrastructure and federal capacity contracts to what the federal government can actually do alone.
2. Cooperation Contract Prohibitions

   287(g) agreements, intergovernmental detention contracts (IGSAs), joint task force agreements, and federally conditioned grants are banned — with a 287(g) prohibition required for full credit.
   Exists (1/2)

   Partial: some contract category prohibited, but either 287(g) is not banned, or 287(g) is banned alone without other contract prohibitions.

   Enforceable (2/2)

   287(g) explicitly banned and at least one other contract category prohibited. Anchor states: CA, IL, MD, WA, OR, NM, NJ.

   Why it matters

   287(g) agreements deputize local police as federal immigration officers. Active agreements grew from about 135 in January 2025 to more than 1,770 by April 30, 2026 — over 1,200 percent in 16 months, and still rising. State legislation is the only mechanism that can constrain this.
3. Sensitive Location Protections

   Courthouses, schools, hospitals, childcare facilities, religious institutions, and workplaces are protected from federal civil enforcement access without a judicial warrant.
   Exists (1/2)

   Partial: 1-3 location types covered, or coverage with major carveouts. Some places are off-limits but not most.

   Enforceable (2/2)

   Four or more of six location types covered with judicial-warrant access standard. Anchor states: CA, CO, CT, IL, MD, ME.

   Why it matters

   Federal sensitive-location protections were rescinded January 20, 2025. State legislation is the only way to restore them within state borders. If people stop going to school, the hospital, or court because they're afraid, the entire civic infrastructure breaks down.
4. Private Detention Industry Restrictions

   Private contractors are prohibited from operating immigration detention facilities within state borders. The state closes the door on the for-profit detention industry.
   Exists (1/2)

   Partial: prohibition limited to new contracts, has a sunset clause, has scope carveouts, or has been partially enjoined by federal court.

   Enforceable (2/2)

   Comprehensive prohibition on private immigration detention. No sunset. Narrow or no carveouts. Statute in force. Anchor states: IL, OR.

   Why it matters

   By early 2026, the federal government had structured up to $65 billion in immigration-detention construction capacity through a U.S. Navy procurement vehicle (WEXMAC), with more than 130 contractors able to receive work without site-by-site competitive bidding. State law is the only mechanism that can stop a private operator from building immigration detention in a state.
5. Information Firewalls

   State data systems are firewalled from federal civil enforcement requests across five domains: voter rolls, DMV and driver records, school records, health records, and professional licensing data.
   Exists (1/2)

   1-2 data domains firewalled with hard-denial language. Some categories are protected but most aren't.

   Enforceable (2/2)

   Three or more of five domains firewalled with hard-denial statutory language. Anchor states: CA (5/5), IL (5/5), CO (4/5), WA, NY, NJ, CT, MD, OR.

   Why it matters

   Since January 2025, the federal government has demanded voter registration files from 48 states. States with statutory firewalls refused and have been winning in federal court. States without firewalls turned over Social Security numbers and driver license data. This standard isn't theoretical — it is the active legal terrain.
6. Warrant Requirement

   A judge-signed warrant — signed by a federal Article III judge, not an administrative warrant from a federal agent — is required before state or local officers honor federal civil enforcement detention or transfer requests.
   Exists (1/2)

   Warrant requirement only, or partial coverage of one dimension. The procedural floor is partly there.

   Enforceable (2/2)

   Judicial warrant required statewide for any detention, hold, or transfer. No administrative-detainer exception. Rights notifications mandated. Eleven jurisdictions meet this: CA, CT, DC, IL, MA, ME, NJ, NY, OR, WA, CO.

   Why it matters

   Federal courts have repeatedly found that warrantless civil immigration arrests violate the Fourth Amendment, including a Seventh Circuit ruling in May 2026. Without this protection, a federal agent can fax a form to your county jail and have someone held for 48 extra hours with no judicial review. That's commandeering, not cooperation.
7. Documentation Transparency

   State and local agencies publicly report cooperation activity on a regular schedule, with the scope to support real oversight. The documentary record exists.
   Exists (1/2)

   Partial: ad-hoc reporting with no fixed schedule, only some agencies covered, narrow scope, or no public posting.

   Enforceable (2/2)

   Mandatory regular schedule (annual minimum, quarterly preferred). All state and local agencies covered. Full scope: communications, custody transfers, federal access requests, contracts. Publicly posted. Anchor states: CO (quarterly), CA (annual).

   Why it matters

   In April 2026, the Government Accountability Office found that the Department of Homeland Security cannot demonstrate its oversight programs work. State-level reporting creates the documentary record that enables both citizen oversight and state-level enforcement of cooperation laws.
8. Enforcement & Remedies

   Cooperation laws have teeth. Citizens can sue when their rights are violated (private right of action), and the state Attorney General has statutory authority to enforce against non-compliant local officials.
   Exists (1/2)

   One mechanism only — either a private right of action without statutory AG enforcement authority, or AG authority without a private right of action.

   Enforceable (2/2)

   Both mechanisms in statute: private right of action with damages or injunctive relief, AND statutory AG enforcement authority specifically for cooperation laws. Anchor states: CT (HB 7212), OR (HB 3265 + Sanctuary Promise Act).

   Why it matters

   Every other standard on this list is only as strong as the mechanism that enforces it. A warrant requirement with no penalty is a suggestion. A private right of action with statutory AG backing is the teeth behind every other standard.
9. Federal Agent Identification & Recording

   Law enforcement officers operating in the state must visibly identify themselves — badge, name or number, agency. Masks prohibited. Recording (body cameras or citizen recording authority) covers federal interactions.
   Exists (1/2)

   1-2 of three dimensions covered (visible ID + mask prohibition + recording), or comprehensive but with Supremacy Clause vulnerability.

   Enforceable (2/2)

   All three dimensions: visible ID, mask prohibition, recording requirement. Framed for all law enforcement (not federal-officer-specific) for Supremacy Clause durability. Civil enforcement mechanism. Anchor states: OR (HB 4138), CT (SB 397), NJ (mask ban + ID).

   Why it matters

   Eighty percent of Americans support requirements that law enforcement identify themselves. Eighty-six percent support body cameras. Federal courts in 2026 have found that masked federal civil enforcement arrests violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. State legislation operationalizes both the public consensus and the constitutional standard. This is a fast-moving standard — five states have enacted in 2025-2026.