Kathy Hochul's ICE Bill: New York's Bold Step on Immigration Enforcement

Governor Kathy Hochul of New York has recently proposed a significant and controversial piece of legislation aimed at reshaping the way state and local authorities interact with federal immigration enforcement, particularly U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The bill, broadly referred to by supporters as the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, has become one of the most discussed policy proposals in the state’s 2026 legislative session, drawing both praise and criticism from politicians, civil rights advocates, law enforcement officials, and members of the public. This bill represents a major shift in New York’s approach to immigration enforcement and reflects broader tensions between state sovereignty, civil liberties, and federal authority.

At its core, Hochul’s legislation seeks to end formal cooperation between local law enforcement and ICE in civil immigration enforcement. Under existing frameworks, agreements known as 287(g) agreements allow local and state police officers to act on behalf of ICE by identifying, detaining, and transferring undocumented immigrants to federal custody. Hochul’s bill would void all such agreements across New York State, meaning that state or local police could no longer be formally deputized to carry out civil immigration arrests on behalf of federal authoritiesKathy Hochul ICE bill. It would also prohibit the use of local jails and detention centers for civil immigration enforcement—a provision aimed at preventing ICE from holding individuals in county facilities without a state judicial warrant.

The proposed legislation also includes several protections designed to safeguard civil liberties. For example, it would restrict ICE from conducting mass raids or entering “sensitive locations” such as schools, hospitals, houses of worship, and private homes without a judicial warrant. This provision responds to growing concerns from immigrant rights advocates and some lawmakers who argue that aggressive enforcement tactics can traumatize families, disrupt children’s education, and erode trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement. Hochul herself has emphasized the need to protect residents from what she describes as federal overreach while still supporting cooperation on criminal matters.

In addition to curtailing formal cooperation, Hochul’s bill would restrict federal immigration agents’ access to local law enforcement resources—such as police technology and information systems—that have historically been used to help track and detain undocumented individuals. While local and state agencies would remain able to partner with federal authorities in the investigation and prosecution of serious violent crimes, the emphasis of the new law is to draw a clearer line between criminal enforcement and civil immigration activities.

Supporters of the bill argue that it would strengthen trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, ensuring that residents are not afraid to report crimes or seek help from police due to fear of immigration consequences. Civil rights groups and progressive advocates have praised the proposal as a meaningful step toward protecting vulnerable populations and reinforcing constitutional protections. They contend that removing local law enforcement from civil immigration tasks allows police to focus on community safety without the added burden of enforcing federal immigration policy.

However, the proposal has also faced significant criticism. Officials from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and some local politicians argue that eliminating cooperation could undermine public safety by reducing ICE’s capacity to detain individuals with serious criminal histories. DHS representatives have maintained that partnerships with local law enforcement are essential to apprehending dangerous offenders and that restricting these collaborations could leave communities more vulnerable. Republican critics, including gubernatorial candidate Bruce Blakeman, have echoed these concerns, suggesting the bill’s provisions could result in fewer criminal immigrants being removed from the state.

Governor Hochul has publicly defended the bill as a balanced approach—one that upholds constitutional rights while preserving cooperation on criminal matters. She has stated that local police will still be able to assist federal authorities in violent crime investigations but will no longer serve as deputized immigration officers enforcing civil deportation actions. This balancing act reflects her attempt to address both law enforcement needs and civil liberties concerns amid a heated national debate on immigration policy.

As the bill moves through the New York State Legislature, its progress will likely influence discussions in other states grappling with similar issues around immigration enforcement. Whether it becomes law, and how it might withstand legal challenges regarding federal versus state authority, remains a key question in the months ahead.