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.
Sources and reading
- New York Attorney General press release, November 6, 2026
Official announcement, James quotation, statutory summary, and Office of Immigrant Trust enforcement powers; retrieved November 8, 2026. - Governor Kathy Hochul press release, November 6, 2026
Official Hochul quotation used in this article and matching statutory summary; retrieved November 8, 2026. - Office of Immigrant Trust guidance letter to sheriffs and county leaders (PDF)
Dated November 6, 2026; cites N.Y. Exec. L. § 170-k, the November 25 deadline, federal statute examples, and the criminal-charge and court-order exceptions.
Reporting above is based on the cited records. The section labeled “Our view” is editorial opinion. This article is not legal advice. Our Gadsden Flag is an independent brand, not a government or military organization.
Conservative commentary · Our view
Our view: Albany should not dismantle lawful immigration enforcement
Our position is straightforward: the federal government has the duty to enforce immigration law, and states should not dismantle the practical tools that make lawful enforcement possible. Local jails have long held people in removal proceedings under federal agreements rather than releasing them. Ending the agreements does not erase the underlying federal violations. It makes the law harder to carry out.
Hochul’s phrase “aggressive deportation agenda,” and her claim that housing civil immigration detainees “does not make New York safer,” are policy arguments, not demonstrated public-safety findings. Removing people who are unlawfully present, after due process, is ordinary work for a sovereign country that maintains a border. James’s line that “local officials should not be doing the work of federal immigration authorities” recasts ordinary cooperation as freelancing. Holding someone under a federal agreement is cooperation, not a county writing its own immigration code.
Federalism is not a one-way shield for sanctuary policy. The Constitution assigns naturalization to Congress and creates a national government capable of defending the country’s borders. States may criticize federal priorities, but they should not veto civil immigration detention that federal law contemplates. If Albany objects, it can take that case to Congress and the voters rather than declaring the agreements “void and unenforceable” after November 25.
The criminal-charge and judicial-warrant exceptions matter, and they also show the statute’s aim: to wall off the civil enforcement immigration law requires day to day. After November 25, New York officials say those agreements become void under state law, and the Office of Immigrant Trust can investigate and sue. Our Gadsden Flag stands for secure borders and lawful federal authority. A state should not boast about making immigration law harder to enforce.