Idaho’s Top Sheriff Told Legislators: ICE Agreements Are a Local Call
Bonneville County Sheriff Samuel Hulse told Idaho’s Committee on Federalism on July 23, 2026 that local sheriffs, not the state legislature, should decide whether to sign formal partnership agreements with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
“Participation in the ICE partnership programs is voluntary and should remain a decision of locally elected officials who are accountable to their communities they serve.”
Sheriff Samuel Hulse, Bonneville County and president, Idaho Sheriffs’ Association, July 23, 2026
Hulse is president of the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association, which opposed House Bill 659 earlier this year. That bill would have required local law enforcement agencies to enter 287(g) agreements with ICE. The Idaho House passed it 41-27 in March 2026. The Senate never took it up, and the bill died when the 2026 legislative session adjourned.
What 287(g) Agreements Actually Require
A 287(g) agreement deputizes local officers to perform immigration enforcement functions that are otherwise a federal responsibility. Hulse told legislators that county jails already face capacity limits and budget constraints that make taking on federal immigration duties unworkable for many agencies.
He drew a clear line between cooperation and mandate. Idaho sheriffs already share inmate booking information with ICE and allow federal agents to interview and take custody of individuals without a formal agreement.
“This existing collaboration ensures federal immigration enforcement responsibilities are fulfilled without requiring local agencies to assume those duties directly.”
Sheriff Samuel Hulse, Bonneville County, July 23, 2026
Forcing a 287(g) agreement on an agency that lacks the staff or jail space to fulfill it doesn’t make enforcement more effective. It shifts federal costs and liability onto county budgets without county consent.
The Legislature May Try Again in 2027
The Committee on Federalism held this hearing during the interim period between sessions. Interim hearings exist to shape future legislation. Thursday’s meeting signals that mandatory ICE partnership bills will likely return in the 2027 session.
Hulse framed local control as an Idaho tradition, not a resistance to immigration enforcement. His testimony gives future opponents of a mandate a strong procedural argument: the state’s own sheriffs say the decision belongs to elected officials closest to their communities.
What You Can Do Now
-
Contact your Idaho state senator at (208) 332-1000 and tell them to oppose any 2027 bill that mandates 287(g) agreements on local agencies. Reference HB 659 by name and note that the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association opposed it.
-
Contact your Idaho state representative through the Idaho Legislature’s legislator lookup at legislature.idaho.gov/legislators/find/. Ask them to vote no on mandatory ICE partnership bills and to support local discretion on 287(g) enrollment.
-
Contact your county sheriff directly and ask whether their office has signed a 287(g) agreement and what their position is on a state mandate. Find your sheriff at idahosheriffs.us. Sheriffs who publicly oppose mandates strengthen the case against the bill in the next session.
-
Submit written public comment to the Committee on Federalism through the Idaho Legislature’s website at legislature.idaho.gov. Interim committees accept public input between sessions, and testimony from constituents becomes part of the legislative record.
Sources
Idaho Capital Sun: Idaho Sheriff Tells Legislators ICE Partnership Decisions Should Be Local
Idaho Capital Sun: Idaho House Passes HB 659 Requiring Local ICE 287(g) Agreements
ICE: 287(g) Program Overview and Requirements
Idaho Legislature: Committee on Federalism Membership and Schedule
Idaho Sheriffs’ Association: Member Directory and Policy Positions