Niagara and Cattaraugus Sheriffs Miss NY Compliance Deadline as Seven Agencies Defy 287(g) Ban Ahead of Aug 25

The Niagara County and Cattaraugus County Sheriff’s Offices failed to submit proof of compliance with New York’s Local Cops, Local Crimes Act by the state’s August 14, 2026 deadline, neither filing the required written documentation with the Office of Immigrant Trust. Attorney General Letitia James’s office had directed twelve local police agencies to terminate their 287(g) agreements by August 25, when the law takes effect, and named both counties among the non-compliant. As of August 18, seven agencies statewide still maintained active ICE agreements under which deputies perform civil immigration enforcement duties. The AG’s office confirmed it was preparing legal action.

The confrontation tests something the corpus has been tracking as it builds: whether a state can actually terminate 287(g) agreements its own subdivisions have signed with a federal agency. New York has been escalating since Hochul signed the ICE cooperation limits (2026-05-29–hochul-signs-ny-ice-cooperation-limits-287g-ban-mask-ban); Madison County defied an earlier AG termination order (2026-07-30–ny-ag-orders-287g-termination-madison-county-defies), Broome County drew organized advocacy pressure at its compliance deadline (2026-08-06–broome-county-ny-287g-advocacy-rally-compliance-deadline), and Nassau County defied the same deadline downstate (2026-08-14–nassau-county-ny-defies-287g-termination-deadline). The sheriffs are elected county officials asserting that a federal agreement outranks state law binding them — and ICE has an interest in their winning, having already expanded hard-sided capacity at Batavia after New York’s jail ban (2026-07-09–ice-batavia-hard-sided-expansion-after-new-york-jail-ban). The countervailing pressure runs the other direction elsewhere: Tennessee legislated a 287(g) mandate compelling sheriffs to sign (2026-05-10–tennessee-hb2219-287g-sheriff-mandate-signed-law). The sheriff’s office is the contested joint in the federal system, and both sides have figured out that whoever controls it controls whether federal immigration enforcement has local hands.