Sanctuary Cities vs. 287(g): How Your State Affects Your Immigration Risk

Not all parts of the United States treat immigrants the same way. In some states, your local police officer has been deputized to act as an immigration agent. In others, city and county governments have passed laws specifically prohibiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The gap between these two worlds is widening — and where you live can determine whether a routine traffic stop turns into deportation.

This guide explains what "sanctuary" policies actually protect, how 287(g) agreements turn local police into immigration enforcers, and what you need to know about your state's current posture toward ICE.

What Is a Sanctuary City or Sanctuary Policy?

The term "sanctuary city" does not have a single legal definition. In practice, it refers to a range of local policies that limit the degree to which local law enforcement cooperates with federal immigration authorities — specifically, with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

These policies exist at the city, county, and state level. The most common sanctuary protections include:

• Refusal to honor ICE detainers without a judicial warrant. An ICE detainer is an administrative request asking a local jail to hold someone past their scheduled release so ICE can pick them up. Multiple federal courts have held that ICE detainers are not legally binding — they are requests, not commands. Many sanctuary jurisdictions will only hold someone for ICE if there is an actual judge-signed warrant.
• Prohibition on asking about immigration status. Officers in sanctuary jurisdictions are typically prohibited from asking people about their immigration status during routine stops or interactions.
• Restriction on sharing information with ICE. Local agencies in sanctuary jurisdictions often limit what information they share with ICE about individuals in their custody, including release dates, addresses, and personal details.
• No use of local jail space for civil immigration holds. Sanctuary jurisdictions typically refuse to use local detention facilities to house individuals on behalf of ICE solely for civil immigration violations.

What Is a 287(g) Agreement?

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act allows the Department of Homeland Security to enter into agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies to perform certain immigration enforcement functions. Under a 287(g) agreement, designated local officers receive training and are authorized to interrogate people about their immigration status, issue immigration detainers, identify and process individuals for removal, and access federal immigration databases.

There are two main types of 287(g) agreements currently in use:

Jail Enforcement Model

Under this model, designated jail officers can interrogate people about their immigration status after they have been arrested for something else. If they find someone who is potentially deportable, they can initiate immigration proceedings from inside the jail. This is the most common 287(g) model and is active in dozens of jurisdictions nationwide.

Task Force Model

This model allows designated local officers to perform immigration enforcement in the community — on the street, during traffic stops, or in neighborhoods. This model was largely discontinued under the Obama administration due to civil rights concerns, but has been aggressively revived under recent administrations. As of 2025-2026, the Task Force model has seen significant expansion.

The Widening Divide: How States Are Splitting

The United States is experiencing an unprecedented polarization on local immigration enforcement. At one end of the spectrum, some states are expanding 287(g) and requiring local agencies to cooperate with ICE. At the other end, states are actively prohibiting that cooperation. The divide is not just political — it has real, immediate consequences for millions of immigrants.

States Moving Toward More Enforcement

Texas is perhaps the most aggressive state in requiring local cooperation with ICE. Texas also has one of the largest networks of 287(g)-participating agencies in the country, with over 50 agencies enrolled.

Florida passed legislation requiring all local law enforcement agencies to comply with ICE detainers and to participate in 287(g) agreements when offered. Florida also receives federal grant funding conditioned on ICE cooperation, creating strong financial incentives for local compliance.

Georgia passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Enforcement Act, which requires law enforcement to use ICE's e-Verify system and mandates cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Indiana, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, and North Carolina have all passed various measures expanding local immigration enforcement authority or requiring cooperation with ICE detainers. Many have also entered into 287(g) agreements covering multiple agencies.

States Moving Toward Protection

Maryland made significant news in 2024 when Governor Wes Moore signed the Trust Act, which substantially restricted local law enforcement agencies from cooperating with ICE. The law prohibits agencies from honoring ICE civil immigration detainers, sharing non-public personal information with ICE, or allowing ICE agents to conduct civil immigration enforcement in local jails.

California has the longest-standing and most comprehensive sanctuary framework in the country, established by the TRUST Act (2013) and expanded by the Values Act (SB54, 2017). California law prohibits local agencies from cooperating with ICE detainers unless the person has been convicted of a serious felony, and limits information sharing with federal immigration authorities.

Illinois passed the TRUST Act in 2017, prohibiting local law enforcement from detaining people based on civil immigration detainers and limiting cooperation with ICE. The Illinois Way Forward Act, enacted in 2021, further restricted state agencies from entering into 287(g) agreements.

New York enacted the Green Light Law in 2019 and has maintained strong sanctuary policies across most of the state. New York City has some of the oldest sanctuary policies in the country, dating back to a 1989 executive order.

Colorado, Washington, Oregon, Connecticut, New Jersey, and Massachusetts have all enacted sanctuary laws or policies limiting local cooperation with ICE.

What Sanctuary Policies Actually Protect

Understanding the real scope of sanctuary protections is critical — both for knowing what safeguards you have and for not having a false sense of security.

In a genuine sanctuary jurisdiction, you can generally expect:

• Release from local custody without ICE pickup — If you complete your local sentence or are otherwise entitled to release from local custody, a sanctuary jurisdiction typically will not hold you for ICE without a judicial warrant. ICE has to come find you after you walk out.
• No immigration questions during routine police encounters — A traffic stop, a noise complaint response, or a minor civil matter should not result in questions about your immigration status in a true sanctuary jurisdiction.
• No sharing of your release date with ICE — In many sanctuary jurisdictions, local jails are prohibited from telling ICE when you are scheduled to be released, which is how ICE typically times its arrests at jails.
• No local cooperation with civil immigration operations — ICE workplace raids, neighborhood sweeps, and enforcement operations will not receive assistance from local police in sanctuary jurisdictions.

What Sanctuary Policies Do NOT Protect

This is where many immigrants have dangerous misconceptions. Sanctuary policies have clear limits:

• ICE can still arrest you directly. ICE agents operate independently of local law enforcement. They can follow you, conduct surveillance, and arrest you on the street, at your home (if they have a judicial warrant), or in public spaces — regardless of whether you are in a sanctuary city.
• Federal courts and federal facilities are never sanctuary. If you have a federal court appearance, a USCIS appointment, or any interaction with a federal agency, you are outside the reach of sanctuary protections entirely.
• CBP checkpoints are federal. Border Patrol checkpoints on federal highways operate under federal jurisdiction. Sanctuary laws do not apply.
• Criminal convictions change the calculus. Many sanctuary laws include exceptions for people with criminal convictions — particularly serious felonies.
• State and federal prisons are not sanctuaries. Sanctuary policies typically apply to local jails and city/county law enforcement. State prisons and federal facilities have full ICE access.
• 287(g) can override sanctuary at the state level. If a state passes a law requiring local agencies to enter into 287(g) agreements, state law may override local sanctuary ordinances.

State-by-State Risk Assessment

Higher-Risk States (Active 287(g) and/or Mandatory Cooperation Laws)

In these states, local law enforcement is more likely to question immigration status, honor ICE detainers, and cooperate actively with ICE operations:

• Texas — Largest 287(g) network, mandatory cooperation requirements
• Florida — State law requires 287(g) participation, financial incentives for cooperation
• Georgia — Comprehensive enforcement law, significant 287(g) participation
• Alabama, North Carolina, Tennessee, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Arkansas — Various mandatory cooperation requirements, growing 287(g) participation
• Arizona — Border state with significant ICE presence and local cooperation

Lower-Risk States (Sanctuary Laws or Policies)

In these states, local law enforcement cooperation with ICE is limited by law, though ICE still operates independently:

• California — Most comprehensive sanctuary framework, TRUST Act and Values Act
• New York — Strong sanctuary policies, especially New York City
• Illinois — TRUST Act, Way Forward Act prohibiting 287(g)
• Maryland — Trust Act (2024) broadly restricting ICE cooperation
• Washington, Oregon, Colorado, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts — Various sanctuary protections

Mixed or Contested States

Many states fall somewhere in between — Philadelphia and Pittsburgh have sanctuary policies while many Pennsylvania counties participate in 287(g). Northern Virginia jurisdictions differ significantly from rural Virginia. Nevada and New Mexico have state-level protections in some areas with mixed local enforcement.

How 287(g) Affects Your Daily Life

For immigrants in 287(g) jurisdictions, the risk often comes not from high-profile ICE raids but from minor everyday interactions. The most common scenario: a routine traffic stop for a broken taillight. The local officer runs your name through the database. Under 287(g) authority, the officer — not ICE — queries immigration databases. A flag comes up. You are taken to a local jail. A 287(g)-trained officer processes you for removal inside the jail. An ICE detainer is issued. You are transferred to ICE custody — all without a federal agent ever being directly involved until the very end.

This is what makes 287(g) so different from traditional ICE enforcement: it embeds immigration enforcement into every routine interaction with local police in participating jurisdictions.

What You Should Do Regardless of Where You Live

Related Reading

This article is part of our series on immigration enforcement in 2026:

• 287(g) Expansion: Know Your Rights When Local Police Are Acting as ICE — A deep dive into how 287(g) agreements work and what rights you have during encounters.
• ICE Detainer Without a Warrant: Your Rights & What to Do — What an ICE detainer actually is, why it is not a judicial warrant, and what federal courts have said about it.

At Modern Law Group, we handle deportation defense, immigration bond hearings, and emergency immigration matters nationwide. If you are concerned about your risk given your location or immigration history, our attorneys can assess your situation and help you build a plan. Call us at (888) 902-9285 or request a free consultation online.