Federal Limits

Limit 02 of nine · Contracts

No deputized local police

2,179 deputization deals — about 33% of Americans now live in a 287(g) county.

The problem

287(g) lets DHS deputize local police as federal civil enforcement agents. An executive order ordered maximum expansion, and signed agreements grew roughly fifteenfold to 2,179 — including the street-level model a federal court tied to systemic race-based policing in Melendres v. Arpaio. With federal audits paused, a state contract ban is the only durable off-switch; where no statute exists, courts have let the deals stand.

What the law does

Bars state and local agencies from entering, renewing, or maintaining any 287(g) agreement.

Where it stands

Where it stands — all 52 jurisdictions16 of 52 have written a limit of this kind
written in full written in part not written red underline = state law mandates cooperation
Find my state all 52 jurisdictions, with the statute where one exists
  • Alaskanot written
  • Alabamanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Arkansasnot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Arizonanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Californiawritten in fullSB 54 §7284.6(a)(2) (287(g) ban) + AB 103 (IGSA detention contract ban)
  • Coloradowritten in partC.R.S. §§ 24-76.7-101 to 24-76.7-103 (article 76.7, added by HB 23-1100, Governor Signed) — restrictions on governmental participation in civil immigration detention
  • Connecticutwritten in fullCGS § 54-192h(b)(1)(E), as amended by PA 25-29 § 4 (Sub. HB 7259; eff. Oct 1 2025)
  • District of Columbianot written
  • Delawarewritten in fullHB 182 (2025) — 287(g) statutory ban + state/local prohibition (signed Meyer July 14, 2025; existing terminations by 2025-08-13)
  • Floridanot writtenstate law mandates cooperationSB 2-C (Ch. 2025-1) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Georgianot writtenstate law mandates cooperationHB 1105 (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Hawaiiwritten in fullAct 141, SLH 2026 (SB 2057 CD1, approved Jun 24 2026) — named 1357(g) agreement ban
  • Iowanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Idahonot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Illinoiswritten in full5 ILCS 805 (Way Forward Act bans 287(g)-style contracts) + 730 ILCS 141 (Private Detention Moratorium)
  • Indiananot writtenstate law mandates cooperationSEA 76 (2026) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Kansasnot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Kentuckynot written
  • Louisiananot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Massachusettswritten in partMGL c.147 §64(c)(1)-(2), inserted by St. 2026, c. 163, §7
  • Marylandwritten in fullHB 444 / Ch. 2 (2026, signed Gov Moore Feb 17) — comprehensive 287(g) ban (state agencies, local govts, county sheriffs)
  • Mainewritten in fullLD 1971 / PL Ch. 517 — 5 MRSA §4763(1)(B): no federal supervision of officers; no deputization as special federal officers/deputies for immigration enforcement
  • Michigannot written
  • Minnesotanot written
  • Missourinot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Mississippinot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Montananot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • North Carolinanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • North Dakotanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Nebraskanot written
  • New Hampshirenot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • New Jerseywritten in fullP.L.2026, c.5 (A4071, 222nd Leg., signed Mar 25 2026) § 3(e)-(f) — 287(g) bar
  • New Mexicowritten in fullHB 9 Sec. 4 (2026), Chapter 5 (2026), Signed by Governor — explicit 287(g) ban + termination of existing
  • Nevadanot written
  • New Yorkwritten in fullCh. 55, Laws of 2026, Part LL Subpart A - statutory ban on formal AND informal 287(g) agreements + IGSA/detention contracts.
  • Ohionot written
  • Oklahomanot written
  • Oregonwritten in fullORS 181A.829(1) — explicit 287(g) agreement ban + ORS 181A.829(3) private-detention ban
  • Pennsylvanianot written
  • Rhode Islandnot written
  • South Carolinanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • South Dakotanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Tennesseenot writtenstate law mandates cooperationHB 2219 (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Texasnot writtenstate law mandates cooperationSB 8 (2025) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Utahnot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Virginiawritten in partSB 783 (signed 2026-04-22) - conditions on federal immigration agreements + judicial-warrant requirement (partial 287(g) restriction). EO 12 supplementary.
  • Vermontwritten in partS.44 / Act 28 (2025) + 20 V.S.A. § 4652 — only Governor (with AG) can authorize 287(g)
  • Washingtonwritten in fullRCW 10.93.160(11) (Keep Washington Working Act, 2019 c 440) — express statutory 287(g) ban; RCW 10.93.160(12) — immigration detention agreements barred, pre-existing agreements terminated
  • Wisconsinnot written
  • West Virginianot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Wyomingnot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Puerto Riconot written

Methodology v3.5 · scored Aug 20 2026

The model language

“No state or local agency shall enter into, modify, extend, renew, or maintain any agreement authorized under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)), including but not limited to Jail Enforcement Model (JEM), Warrant Service Officer (WSO), or Task Force Model (TFM) agreements.”

— Section 2 · Cooperation Contract Prohibitions, The Federal Limits Act
Read the full model bill →

What we propose

Prohibit any state or local agency from entering, extending, or maintaining a 287(g) agreement of any kind, terminate existing ones within 180 days, and void those that don’t comply. Model: California Gov. Code §7284.6(a)(2); Maryland HB 444 (2026).

Who’s already done it

16 states; 12 at full strength — CA, CT, DE, HI, IL, MD, ME, NJ, NM, NY, OR, WA. California’s §7284.6(a)(2) is the upheld model; Maryland’s HB 444 (2026) is the cleanest immediate wind-down; Maine and Connecticut reach the bar by prohibiting the deputization itself.

On the record

Status: surging and largely unchecked federally; a statutory ban holds where enacted, fails where absent.

One of nine.
Not the whole fight.

See where your state stands on all nine limits, or read the model bill section that closes this one.

Check your state → ← Back to the Nine