287(g) Program Protection Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Risch, James E. [R-ID]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jul 23, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to expand and strengthen the 287(g) program by making it easier for state and local law enforcement to partner with federal immigration authorities and harder for DHS to deny or terminate these agreements.
What it actually does
This bill significantly amends Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, mandating that the Secretary of Homeland Security (DHS) approve requests from state or local law enforcement for 287(g) agreements unless there is a compelling reason for denial. It prohibits limits on the number of such agreements, establishes a new fund to cover program administrative expenses, and restricts DHS's ability to terminate existing agreements. The bill also requires uniform training standards for participating officers.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue the bill clarifies congressional intent to empower state and local law enforcement in immigration enforcement, enhancing public safety by facilitating the identification and removal of criminal aliens. They contend it provides necessary resources and stability to a vital program, addressing current DHS policies that may limit participation and ensuring local jurisdictions can effectively respond to immigration challenges.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that expanding the 287(g) program could lead to racial profiling, erode trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, and divert local resources from community policing to federal immigration duties. They might also contend that it federalizes local police and could lead to civil rights abuses without adequate federal oversight.
The bill is short and relatively straightforward, allowing for a quick and comprehensive understanding of its provisions for an informed reader.
Section 2(1), amending 8 U.S.C. 1357(g)(1)
Mandatory Approval of 287(g) Requests
This provision mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security shall enter into 287(g) agreements with states or political subdivisions upon request, unless a 'compelling reason' for denial exists. If a request is denied, DHS must submit an explanation to Congress and publish it in the Federal Register 180 days before finalizing the denial. The bill also prohibits placing any limit on the number of agreements and requires processing requests within 90 days.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this ensures local jurisdictions, which are often on the front lines of immigration challenges, have the tools they need to protect their communities and enforce federal law, preventing arbitrary denials by the federal government.
Critics contend
Opponents would argue this provision strips DHS of necessary oversight and discretion, potentially forcing the federal government into agreements with agencies that may not be adequately prepared or have a history of civil rights concerns.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances federal discretion in immigration enforcement with state and local autonomy and desire for participation, potentially shifting more power to local entities.
Section 2(4), inserting new paragraph (2) in 8 U.S.C. 1357(g)
Flexible Enforcement Models
This provision requires DHS to accommodate a requesting State or political subdivision's preferred enforcement model for 287(g) agreements. This includes patrol, task force, jail models, any combination thereof, or any other reasonable model the State or political subdivision believes is best suited to its jurisdiction's immigration enforcement needs.
Section 2(4), inserting new paragraph (4) in 8 U.S.C. 1357(g)
Restrictions on Agreement Termination
This provision prohibits the Secretary of Homeland Security from terminating a 287(g) agreement without a 'compelling reason.' It requires DHS to provide 180 days' written notice, fully explaining the grounds for termination with substantiating evidence. The State or political subdivision gains the right to appeal the decision to an administrative law judge or bring a civil action, and the agreement remains in full effect during all legal proceedings.
Section 2(5), amending redesignated paragraph (6) of 8 U.S.C. 1357(g)
Standardized Training for Officers
This provision mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security implement uniform training requirements for all law enforcement officers performing immigration officer functions under 287(g). These requirements must align with Federal Law Enforcement Training Center (FLETC) standards as they existed on the date of the bill's enactment.
Section 3, amending 8 U.S.C. 1356(r)
Dedicated 287(g) Funding Stream
This section renames the existing 'Breached Bond/Detention Fund' to the 'Breached Bond/Detention/287(g) Fund.' It explicitly authorizes the use of monies from this fund for 'expenses associated with administering section 287(g).' Additionally, it transfers administrative authority for this fund from the Attorney General to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
The bill states, 'Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall enter into a written agreement...' Section 1342 of Title 31 is the Anti-Deficiency Act, which generally prohibits federal agencies from incurring obligations or expending funds in advance of an appropriation or in excess of an appropriation.
Section 2(1)(A), amending 8 U.S.C. 1357(g)(1)(A)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative drafting to explicitly override or clarify the applicability of existing law. It ensures that the mandatory nature of entering into 287(g) agreements is not hindered by potential Anti-Deficiency Act concerns, especially since the agreements are at the expense of the State or political subdivision.
Case for: Proponents would argue this clarifies that DHS cannot use budget shortfalls as a reason to deny 287(g) requests, thereby removing a potential barrier to program expansion and ensuring federal commitment to these partnerships.
Case against: Opponents might argue that overriding the Anti-Deficiency Act, even in this context, could set an undesirable precedent or create unforeseen fiscal vulnerabilities if not carefully managed, potentially removing a check on program expansion.
Estimated impact: Clarifies the legal framework for funding and entering into 287(g) agreements, potentially removing a significant barrier for DHS to approve requests and ensuring the mandatory nature of the program.
This clause clarifies that 'any reference to a political subdivision shall be construed to include any law enforcement or corrections agency of such political subdivision.'
Section 2(1)(D), amending 8 U.S.C. 1357(g)(1)(D)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to define terms for clarity and to ensure the bill's provisions apply as intended. In this case, it explicitly broadens the scope of entities that can request 287(g) agreements.
Case for: Proponents would argue this ensures that specific agencies within a political subdivision (like a county sheriff's office or a city police department) can independently request and enter into 287(g) agreements, even if the broader political subdivision itself does not initiate the request. This empowers local law enforcement directly.
Case against: Opponents might argue this could bypass higher-level political subdivision oversight (e.g., a county commission or city council) that might have reservations about 287(g) participation, potentially leading to less democratic accountability for local immigration enforcement decisions.
Estimated impact: Broadens the scope of entities that can directly request 287(g) agreements, potentially increasing program participation and decentralizing decision-making within local governments.