Aug 3 NDNY 287(g)-Adjacent Ruling Confirmed as United States v. Russo (Not 'v. State of New York'); Nassau's Two ICE Agreements Still on ICE's Own Roster Three Days After Blakeman's Termination Announcement

What happened

A follow-up research pass independently verified, directly against federal court dockets (not secondary or state-pleading citations), the two NDNY docket numbers a prior pass had sourced only to the state’s own verified complaint against Sheriff Bourgault. The verification produced a significant correction and surfaced a live discrepancy in Nassau County’s compliance status.

Correction (lead finding)

The Aug 3, 2026 NDNY ruling (ECF No. 53) that grants in part and denies in part a preliminary injunction is captioned United States v. Russo, not “United States v. State of New York” as the prior work-log entry and this corpus’s 2026-08-28 timeline entry both stated (both citing the state’s verified complaint, which used the shorthand caption).

Verified directly from the federal docket (CourtListener/RECAP mirror, docket/73606612/united-states-v-russo/):

• Docket: 1:26-cv-01360, N.D.N.Y. Filed June 22, 2026 in W.D.N.Y. (before Judge Lawrence J. Vilardo), then transferred to N.D.N.Y. on July 13, 2026 and assigned to Judge Mae A. D’Agostino — which resolves the prior pass’s “filed ~June 2026” uncertainty.
• Named defendant Michael Russo (a New York State official; role not established this pass) was dismissed from the case on July 10, 2026 (“granting 8 Motion to Dismiss Defendant Michael Russo. The Clerk of Court shall remove Russo as a defendant”) — before transfer to NDNY, but the case caption was never updated and still carries his name.
• The complaint originally referenced 287(g) agreement counts — on July 8, 2026 the court ordered the government to file a letter “identifying any references in the complaint to the number of 287(g) agreements in the Western District of New York” — so 287(g) is contextually present in this litigation’s background, but is not the statute the Aug 3 ruling adjudicates.
• The Aug 3, 2026 order (ECF 53) itself concerns New York Civil Rights Law § 101 (the “Face Covering Act”) and § 102 (the “Identification Act”) — statutes restricting ICE agent conduct (mask-wearing, identification requirements) in the field. This is a different, though related, New York statute from the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act that bans local 287(g) participation. The order grants the United States’ preliminary-injunction motion in part and denies it in part as to those two statutes specifically. Whether this ruling has any direct bearing on the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act’s 287(g) ban was not established this pass — the prior framing (“denying DOJ’s injunction request against the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act”) is not supported by what this docket actually adjudicates and should not be repeated without further verification.

Confidence: high on docket identity, filing history, and subject matter (all read directly off the federal docket’s own entries). Lower on how this ruling relates to the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act specifically — that connection, if any, was not confirmed and needs its own pass against the actual order text (ECF 53), which was not independently pulled this session (PACER paywall; RECAP has not purchased it).

Second docket confirmed cleanly

Bourgault v. Hochul, 1:26-cv-01637 (N.D.N.Y.), filed Aug. 25, 2026 — confirmed directly against the federal docket, matching the state’s complaint citation exactly. Sheriff Bourgault and 14 other named plaintiffs (sheriffs/officials) sue Hochul, James, and the State of New York. Assigned to Judge Mae A. D’Agostino. The docket’s own automated “Notice of Potential Related Case(s)” entry lists “1:26-cv-1360, 1:26-cv-1281” as related cases — this is what led to identifying (and correcting) the Russo docket, and to locating the third case below.

A related docket located, not yet read

State of New York v. The U.S. Department of Justice, 1:26-cv-01281 (N.D.N.Y.), filed June 22, 2026 — confirmed as a distinct real docket via CourtListener’s search index (court, date, and exact docket number all match), listed as related to Bourgault v. Hochul by the court’s own notice. The docket detail page returned CourtListener’s WAF JS-challenge (HTTP 202, zero bytes) on every attempt this session — an access blocker, not a verified absence. Its docket entries and subject matter are not yet established. Given the filing date (same week the Russo case was transferred) and the state-as-plaintiff-against-DOJ posture, this is a plausible candidate for where a Local Cops, Local Crimes Act challenge proper would live, but that is a hypothesis, not a finding.

Nassau County: the Aug 25/Aug 28 roster still shows both agreements active

ICE published a newer roster snapshot since the prior pass (download ID changed from 208496 to 208609; new file ParticipatingAgencies08282026pm.xlsx, server last-modified 2026-08-28 16:48:45 GMT). Parsed the same way as the prior pass (direct XML extraction, no openpyxl available): 2,417 data rows, three New York agencies still listed, unchanged from the Aug 25 snapshot:

Negative controls (Otsego, Mohawk, Camden, Allegany Village, Niagara, St. Lawrence/Lawrence) were re-run against the new file and are true zeros for New York — the matching logic is validated by real hits for the same fragments in other states (e.g., “Lawrence” → Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri, Pennsylvania, Tennessee county agencies; “Camden” → Camden County, Georgia).

This sits in real tension with multiple Aug 26 tier-2 reports (ABC7 New York, Politico, PIX11, LI Press, Fox 5 NY) quoting Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman directly (“saddest day”) announcing he ended Nassau’s ICE partnership. ICE’s own roster, current as of three days later (Aug 28 PM), still lists both Nassau agreements as active. No Nassau County government primary document (press release, executive order, or official statement page) was located this pass — the web search tier (local SearXNG) was down entirely (connection refused, not merely rate- limited) for the whole session, and a targeted curl of Nassau County’s own site did not surface one. This gap is not resolved; report the tension rather than assuming either side is wrong. A possible explanation not yet confirmed: ICE’s roster may lag real-world terminations by more than three days, or Blakeman’s announcement may cover only one of the two Nassau instruments, or the termination paperwork may not yet have reached ICE. None of these is verified.

Remaining gaps carried forward

• 287(g) model (JEM/WSO/TFM) for the four small terminated agencies (Otsego, Mohawk Village PD, Camden PD, Allegany Village PD) remains unknown — a terminated MOA doesn’t appear on ICE’s current-agreements roster, and the AG’s original July 24 termination letter (which would likely specify per-agency model) was not located this pass.
• The substantive relationship (if any) between the Russo ruling’s Face Covering Act/ Identification Act subject matter and the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act’s 287(g) ban is unconfirmed.
• 1:26-cv-01281 (State of New York v. DOJ) docket entries not yet read — WAF-blocked.
• No court ruling yet found on the Rensselaer mandamus petition (People v. Bourgault, filed 2026-08-27) — reasonable given the short interval since filing.
• No Nassau County primary-source document located on the Aug 26 termination claim.

Connects to

2026-08-28–ice-own-roster-confirms-nine-ny-agencies-terminated-287g-docket-26cv1360-identified (prior pass — the docket number 26-cv-1360 it identified is confirmed correct by number, but its case-name attribution and Local Cops, Local Crimes Act characterization are corrected here)

2026-08-27–ny-287g-compliance-deadline-passes-state-sues-rensselaer-corrected-roster (12-agency roster and per-agency status this pass extends)

2026-08-26–ny-ag-james-subpoenas-counties-defying-287g-termination-law