OG News

Verified reporting

Verified reporting: what New York officials announced

On November 6, 2026, Attorney General Letitia James and Gov. Kathy Hochul announced that the attorney general’s Office of Immigrant Trust had sent a letter to county executives and sheriffs across New York. Official releases say officials must end any agreement to house or detain people for federal civil immigration violations by November 25, 2026. That deadline comes from the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, which the releases and the guidance letter say was signed into law on May 27, 2026. Friday’s announcement was a reminder about that already-enacted statute, not a newly signed ban.

The letter, signed by Office of Immigrant Trust Bureau Chief Lillian Marquez, says the act added Section 170-k to the Executive Law and quotes its bar on local governments and specified facilities “entering into, modifying, renewing, remaining in, or extending” any contract, intergovernmental service agreement, or other formal or informal agreement “to house or detain individuals for federal civil immigration violations, including, but not limited to, agreements entered into pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a) or § 1231(g).” Citing N.Y. Exec. L. § 170-k(7)(b), it says an agency with a prohibited agreement must “exercise any applicable termination provision” by November 25, 2026, three months after the law’s effective date. After that date, “any such agreement shall be deemed not consistent with state law, void, and unenforceable.” If an agreement covers both criminal and civil detention, the civil-detention portion must end.

The official materials say the law does not prevent a local agency from contracting for detention space for people facing pending federal criminal charges, so long as the agreement does not provide space solely for federal civil immigration violations. It also does not stop compliance with a state or federal court order or judicial warrant. The letter asks counties to report compliance steps or confirm they have no prohibited agreements. Both releases say the Office of Immigrant Trust may receive complaints, investigate, issue subpoenas, and bring civil actions.

James said, “Local officials should not be doing the work of federal immigration authorities,” and that New York passed the law “because taxpayer resources should be dedicated solely to keeping our communities safe.” On the governor’s official page, Hochul said local law enforcement should focus on “protecting New Yorkers and keeping dangerous criminals off our streets, not helping ICE carry out their aggressive deportation agenda.” She added, “Allowing ICE to utilize our local jails for civil immigration detention does not make New York safer.” This publication has not independently inventoried which counties still have such agreements or how many people they cover.

Legal / factual context

Context: civil detention agreements are not the whole of federal law

Federal immigration law authorizes the national government to arrange detention capacity, including through agreements with local facilities. The New York letter itself cites 8 U.S.C. § 1103(a) and § 1231(g) as examples of those authorities. The November 6 materials target civil immigration detention agreements; they are not a ban on all contact with federal authorities, and they are not a newly decided federal lawsuit. Whether the state statute conflicts with federal immigration law, and whether Washington will challenge it, have not been adjudicated in the official documents reviewed for this article.

Verified reporting

Verified reporting: what is actually before the Court

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Nielsen v. Watanabe, No. 25-417, on Monday, November 9, 2026. Its official docket records that the justices granted review on June 22 and set the argument date on August 11. The Court’s published day call lists the case first, with one hour allocated. This is an upcoming argument, not a ruling, and this article does not predict the result.

The immediate dispute concerns a federal prisoner’s medical-care claim, not a newly decided lawsuit against ICE. The question-presented document describes allegations that Kekai Watanabe suffered a fractured coccyx in a prison gang fight, experienced chronic pain, and was not sent to a hospital. Those are allegations recounted in a party’s submission, not independent findings by this publication.

The question presented asks whether the Ninth Circuit erred in recognizing a Bivens cause of action. Bivens is the Supreme Court’s 1971 decision recognizing an implied damages action against federal officers for certain constitutional violations. A cause of action is a legal means to sue; it should not be confused with the underlying constitutional right itself.

The parties disagree about the significance of Carlson v. Green, the 1980 precedent involving an Eighth Amendment medical-care claim. The petitioner’s question-presented document argues that this case differs meaningfully from Carlson. The respondent’s brief frames the issue as whether his claim may proceed under Carlson. These are competing legal positions, not a settled conclusion about this case.

Legal / factual context

Legal context: a remedy and a right are not the same thing

In Egbert v. Boule, decided in 2022, the Supreme Court declined to extend Bivens to the Fourth Amendment excessive-force and First Amendment retaliation claims at issue there. The opinion explains the Court’s restrictive approach to new Bivens contexts and asks whether Congress might be better equipped to create a damages remedy. That precedent supplies context; it does not tell readers how the justices will decide Watanabe’s claim.

Likewise, a hearing on the availability of one damages action is not proof that every federal officer has immunity from every form of accountability. Different legal claims and remedies have different rules. Readers should resist headlines that collapse all of those questions into a single yes-or-no verdict on constitutional rights.