A 287(g) agreement does not give every officer in a participating agency blanket immigration authority. It allows specifically nominated, trained, and approved local personnel to perform only the immigration-officer functions named in that agency’s written agreement, under ICE direction and supervision. The signed memorandum of agreement (MOA), its operating procedures and appendices, and its current status determine what those personnel may do.
What a 287(g) agreement allows
Section 287(g)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes ICE to delegate specified immigration-officer functions to state and local law-enforcement personnel under ICE direction and supervision. That is the legal basis for the program, not a single standard list of powers that applies to every participating agency. ICE’s 287(g) program page describes the statutory authority and current program models.
The practical scope comes from the individual agreement. In ICE’s 2025 Task Force Model agreement with the South Carolina Law Enforcement Division (SLED), ICE nominates, trains, and approves selected personnel to perform certain functions within the agency’s jurisdiction. The agreement limits ICE direction and supervision to those delegated immigration functions; the local agency continues to supervise officers’ other work. Read the SLED Task Force Model MOA, revised February 12, 2025.
How the authority varies by model
ICE describes different settings for its models. The setting matters: authority associated with work in a jail should not be assumed to apply to routine policing in the community, or vice versa.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errors2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems#1 Best Overall
| Model or agreement | What the cited description says | Important boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Jail Enforcement Model | ICE says designated officers may identify and process people ICE considers removable who have pending or active criminal charges while they are in the participating agency’s jail or detention facility. ICE program description. | The description is a general orientation; the local MOA and procedures specify the participating personnel and permitted functions. |
| Task Force Model | ICE says local officers may exercise limited immigration authority during routine police duties. ICE program description. | “Limited” does not mean every local officer may perform immigration functions. The particular agreement controls. |
| Walker County Jail Enforcement agreement | The 2025 agreement says participating personnel may perform only functions in its standard operating procedures. It focuses on people arrested and booked into the county jail. | Under this agreement, ICE assumes custody only after a person is released from local custody. This is a term of the Walker County agreement, not a universal rule for all 287(g) agreements. Read the Walker County Jail Enforcement MOA, revised February 15, 2025. |
| Garrett County Warrant Service Officer agreement | A separate 2025 agreement describes a limited, jail-based role facilitating transfer to ICE at scheduled release from criminal custody. | This agreement illustrates another model; its terms should not be attributed to every Jail Enforcement or Task Force agreement. Read the Garrett County Warrant Service Officer MOA, revised February 15, 2025. |
What a 287(g) agreement does not authorize
- It does not grant powers to an entire police or sheriff’s department. Delegated authority applies to personnel selected and approved under the agreement, and only within its stated scope.
- It does not make ICE the supervisor of every local-police activity. In the SLED agreement, ICE directs and supervises participating personnel only for the immigration functions authorized by that MOA; other work remains under local supervision.
- It does not make an ICE detainer a judicial warrant. ICE says only ICE officers and designated 287(g) officers may issue immigration detainers. ICE policy, as described on its detainer page, requires probable cause to believe the person is removable before a detainer is issued. That statement concerns ICE’s detainer policy; it is not a blanket rule defining every action permitted under every 287(g) agreement. ICE guidance on immigration detainers.
- It does not itself guarantee reimbursement. ICE identifies the Department of Justice’s State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP), which can fund specified incarceration costs, as separate from 287(g). The agreements and sources cited here do not establish a complete accounting of local costs or the financial terms of every agreement.
How to check what a specific agency may do
Find the currently effective, signed agreement for the agency—not just a general page describing the 287(g) program. Then check the agreement and its appendices or standard operating procedures against the officer, action, location, and circumstances in question.
- Confirm the officer’s approval. Is this person nominated, trained, and approved under the current agreement?
- Find the exact delegated function. Does the signed MOA or its procedures authorize this particular immigration-related action?
- Check setting and conditions. Is the officer acting within the agreement’s geography and any conditions that trigger the authority?
- Check supervision and status. Is the action being performed under ICE direction and supervision, and is the agreement still in effect?
For a fuller comparison, inspect each agreement’s model and covered setting, approved personnel, delegated actions, geographic and triggering limits, supervision, duration, amendment and termination terms, complaint process, and any custody-transfer provisions. The SLED agreement, for example, includes duration and complaint procedures; those details must be verified in the agreement for the agency at issue rather than assumed across the program.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Keep the stages of enforcement distinct
Authorization to perform an immigration function does not collapse separate legal and custody steps into one. An arrest on criminal charges, immigration processing, issuing a detainer, transferring a person to ICE custody, and removal from the United States are distinct events. A program description or agreement authorizing certain local functions does not by itself establish that every person encountered will be detained or removed.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
