8 U.S. Code § 1357

Immigration and Nationality Act Section 287(g) was created as part of the US Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA).^[1] The law was designed to allow federal authorities to enter agreements with state and local agencies.^[2] It authorized them to enforce federal immigration law under federal supervision. Before 1996, immigration enforcement was primarily handled by federal officers of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), and local police had limited involvement. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks, the federal government encouraged greater cooperation with state and local authorities in immigration enforcement.^[3] The United States Department of Justice and later the Department of Homeland Security issued guidance suggesting that local officers could have a role in enforcing immigration laws, although such authority remained limited to formal agreements under Section 287(g). In 2002, a memorandum from US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales clarified and slightly expanded the perceived scope of local authority. It emphasized cooperation between federal and local agencies. Over time, Section 287(g) has been implemented in different ways, including task force and jail-based models, and has become part of a broader set of programs integrating local police into federal immigration enforcement.^[4]

Statutory authority

Purpose and scope

Section 287(g) was established to increase the federal government's ability to enforce immigration law by leveraging the resources of state and local law-enforcement agencies.^[2] The program allows trained officers to assist in identifying, questioning, and processing noncitizens who may be removable under federal law. Originally conceived as a way to target individuals involved in serious crimes, the program has evolved across administrations and jurisdictions to support a variety of enforcement strategies. The scope of each agreement depends on what is included in the memorandum of agreement (MOA). Some agencies use a jail-based model, where trained officers screen people already in local custody. Others have used a task-force model, where officers with delegated authority work in the field.^[5] DHS has adjusted the program over time, expanding or narrowing how these authorities are used depending on federal priorities.^[1] Because participation is voluntary, and because MOAs can differ by location, the way the program functions can vary a lot between jurisdictions.

Delegation and limits

Delegation under 287(g) applies only to individual officers who are selected by their agency, trained by the federal government, and approved by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).^[6] These officers can carry out specific immigration-related duties listed in the MOA, such as questioning individuals about status, issuing immigration detainers, and preparing immigration charging documents. All of these actions must follow federal procedures, and the officers work under ICE supervision. There are clear limits on what local officers can do. They may only perform tasks that are explicitly delegated to them, and only while following federal guidelines. They do not gain general authority to enforce immigration law outside of the 287(g) agreement. Final decisions about immigration cases remain with federal officials. Courts and legal analyses consistently note that immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility, and that any state or local involvement must stay within the boundaries set by federal law and the terms of the agreement.^[7]

Implementation

Task force model

Under the task force model, officers with 287(g) authority use their federal training in the field. These officers can question individuals about immigration status during traffic stops, investigations, or other encounters.^[4] This model allows local agencies to apply immigration enforcement authority outside the jail setting. It was used more widely in the early years of the program but became less common after DHS shifted its focus toward jail-based screening. The task force model has been controversial because it gives officers broad contact with the public and has raised concerns about targeting and inconsistent enforcement practices.^[8]

Jail model

Under the jail model, trained officers screen people who are already in local custody. These officers review booking information, interview individuals, and check immigration databases. If they identify someone who may be removable, they can begin the immigration processing and issue an immigration detainer.^[5] DHS has promoted the jail model because it focuses on individuals who are already detained for separate criminal or civil violations rather than on community policing activities. Most 287(g) agreements now operate exclusively under this jail-based structure.^[9]

Legal issues

Legal discussions surrounding 287(g) agreements focus on the limits of delegated authority, the proper handling of detainers, and compliance with federal immigration procedures. Courts have ruled that immigration enforcement remains primarily a federal responsibility, and that local officers must stay within the powers outlined in their agreements.^[7] Several lawsuits have challenged agencies for alleged overreach, including detaining U.S. citizens or holding individuals without a valid immigration basis. Questions about liability, due process, and the Fourth Amendment appear frequently in litigation.^[10]

The program raises federalism concerns because immigration is a federal domain, but the program relies on local officers for operational support. Supporters argue that 287(g) fits within constitutional limits because the federal government directs the program and retains final authority.^[3] Critics argue that the program blurs the line between federal and local powers, especially when local agencies use immigration authority in ways that differ from federal priorities. The voluntary nature of the program and the variation among agreements contribute to ongoing debates about the proper balance between national policy and local discretion.^[11]

Civil rights issues associated with 287(g) center on claims of racial profiling, unequal treatment, and improper detentions. Advocacy groups and federal investigations have reported patterns where Latino communities were disproportionately affected, especially under the task force model.^[12] Some agencies faced findings from the Department of Justice for discriminatory policing linked to immigration authority. Concerns also arise about access to counsel, language barriers, and the treatment of U.S. citizens who were mistakenly detained. These issues have led to calls for stricter oversight and clearer safeguards within the program.^[12]

Reception

The 287(g) program has received mixed responses from policymakers, scholars, law enforcement, and community groups.

Supporters argue that the program enhances public safety by allowing local officers to assist federal authorities in identifying and processing noncitizens who may be removable under immigration law.^[13] Federal training and supervision are intended to standardize enforcement practices and reduce local errors. The jail-based model is often highlighted for focusing on individuals already in custody for criminal or civil offenses, allowing for more controlled enforcement and oversight.^[2] Proponents assert that participation can improve coordination between federal and local agencies and facilitate the removal of individuals with criminal convictions.^[14]

Critics contend that the program can contribute to racial profiling and unequal treatment of immigrant communities. Investigations by civil-rights organizations and the Department of Justice have documented instances in which enforcement actions under 287(g) disproportionately affected Latino populations and occasionally resulted in the detention of U.S. citizens or lawful residents.^[4] Critics also cite concerns about community trust, noting that involvement in immigration enforcement can discourage individuals from reporting crimes or cooperating with local law enforcement.^[15] Additional criticisms include the diversion of local resources to immigration enforcement, inconsistent training and oversight, and variable program effectiveness. Participation and implementation differ among jurisdictions, with some localities terminating agreements due to costs, legal liability, or conflicts with community priorities.^[16]