ALBANY, N.Y. — Governor Kathy Hochul and Attorney General Letitia James have given New York county sheriffs a deadline and a warning: wind down every agreement that gives federal immigration agents access to local jails by November 25, or face legal action by the state. The letter, sent Friday, November 6, to 14 sheriff's offices through the Attorney General's Office of Immigrant Trust, is the state's enforcement follow-through on its 'Local Cops, Local Crimes Act' — and it lands two days after a federal judge refused the sheriffs' bid to block the law, a ruling Awaaz Punjab reported on November 4.
Source: Hometown Register
In the letter, Hochul and James told the sheriffs they should be 'prepared to fully wind down any agreement that gives federal agents access to local jails' by the November 25 deadline to comply with the Act. James warned separately that sheriffs will face legal action from the state if they do not comply while their own lawsuit against the law is still pending. The directive covers agreements under which U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) holds people in county jails on civil immigration detainers.
Source: Hometown Register
The law behind the letter
Hochul signed the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act on May 27 as part of a sweeping state budget package. The law — Executive Law § 170-k — prohibits New York state and local law enforcement agencies and local governments from entering into or maintaining agreements under Section 287(g) of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act, the programme through which ICE delegates certain immigration-enforcement functions to trained local officers. It also bars contracts to house people held solely for federal civil immigration violations. Exceptions remain for pending federal criminal charges, court orders and judicial warrants — the Act targets civil immigration enforcement, not criminal cases.
The restrictions took effect on August 25, 2026. That same day, a coalition of more than 15 county sheriffs, led by Rensselaer County Sheriff Kyle Bourgault, sued Hochul, James and the state (Bourgault v. Hochul, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York), arguing the ban violates the federal and state constitutions, interferes with sheriffs' authority and overrides their existing agreements with the federal government. The sheriffs asked the court for a preliminary injunction that would have suspended the law while the case proceeds.
The November 4 ruling that set this up
On Wednesday, November 4, U.S. District Judge Mae A. D'Agostino in Albany denied the sheriffs' request for a preliminary injunction. She ruled the sheriffs had not established a likelihood that they have the capacity to sue the state over the alleged constitutional violations, citing a New York law that restricts the ability of local governments to challenge state laws on constitutional grounds. The denial was not a final ruling that the Act is constitutional — the underlying lawsuit continues — but it left the restrictions fully in force, and James declared the sheriffs' attempt 'dead in the water' on X that day. Friday's letter is Albany converting that courtroom win into a compliance deadline.
Source: Bloomberg Law
Sheriffs are expected to appeal
The sheriffs' lawyers have argued in court filings that banning 287(g) agreements is an illegal overreach by the state government that interferes with contractual agreements between counties and the federal government, and the sheriffs are expected to appeal D'Agostino's ruling. The coalition's named petitioners include Madison County Sheriff Todd Hood, Oswego County Sheriff Don Hilton and Cayuga County Sheriff Brian Schenck. The fight is not uniform across counties: Hood announced on August 17 that his office had already terminated its agreement with ICE.
Source: The Objectivist
A second front: the state sues a sheriff, and Washington sues the state
The letter is one front in a three-way legal war over immigration enforcement in New York. Hochul and James have also sued the Rensselaer County Sheriff's Office — Bourgault's own office — for failing to comply with the Act. In the opposite direction, the U.S. Department of Justice has sued New York State over the new law, and in that case a federal judge has temporarily blocked a separate provision banning ICE agents from wearing masks during enforcement operations while the fight plays out; James has filed a countersuit to uphold the law. The wider statute also restricts ICE access to sensitive locations such as schools, churches and courthouses.
Advocates welcome it; the clock is now the story
The New York Immigration Coalition (NYIC) thanked Judge D'Agostino for rejecting the sheriffs' injunction request, and Caribbean immigration advocates in New York welcomed the ruling — a reminder that the law's effects reach immigrant communities across the state, including the large Punjabi and South Asian communities in New York City, Long Island and the Hudson Valley, whose families interact with county jails and ICE detainers most directly. For those communities, the practical question is no longer what the law says but whether every county actually winds its jail agreements down by November 25 — and what the state does to any sheriff who refuses.
Source: Caribbean Media Corporation via CanaNews
November 25 is the compliance deadline in the Hochul–James letter. Before then, watch for the sheriffs' expected appeal of the November 4 ruling, any county announcing it has terminated its ICE jail agreement, and the first state enforcement step against a county that misses the deadline. The sheriffs' underlying lawsuit and the Justice Department's separate suit against the state both continue.
Awaaz Punjab covered the November 4 injunction ruling when it landed; this follow-up will be updated as counties respond to the letter and as the appeal is filed. Readers with family members held on civil immigration detainers in New York county jails should note the distinction the Act draws: it covers civil immigration holds, while people facing pending federal criminal charges, court orders or judicial warrants remain under separate rules.