How do local law enforcement agencies in Memphis coordinate with ICE, and what guidelines determine which individuals are targeted?
Executive summary
Local law enforcement in Memphis coordinates with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) through formal agreements and ad hoc operational ride‑alongs that embed federal personnel alongside city, county and state agencies, including under the federally delegated 287(g) framework that authorizes local officers to perform immigration functions under ICE supervision [1] [2]. ICE and Tennessee officials present the collaboration as focused on removing criminal aliens, but reporting and local data show a substantial share of arrests involve people not yet convicted of crimes and that many operations in Memphis proceed quietly, sometimes initiated by local traffic or patrol stops with ICE following in unmarked vehicles [2] [3] [4].
1. How the legal machinery works: 287(g) and delegated authority
The legal backbone for local–federal coordination is Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which allows ICE to delegate specified immigration‑enforcement functions to trained state and local officers who operate under ICE direction and supervision; ICE publicly markets the program as a way to identify and remove immigrants involved in gang activity, violent crime and serious offenses [1] [2]. ICE data show thousands of memorandums of agreement nationwide—and the agency describes multiple program models, including “jail enforcement” and task‑force integrations—that expand the reach of federal immigration enforcement through local partners [1] [5].
2. What coordination looks like in Memphis on the ground
Reporting on Memphis describes a mixed model: some activities are formalized through agreements and grants, while many arrests are described as “quiet” or undercover operations in which Memphis Police, the Shelby County Sheriff’s Office and Tennessee Highway Patrol initiate stops and ICE or Homeland Security Investigations officers ride along or follow in dark unmarked vehicles to take custody [3] [4] [6]. Community monitors such as Vecindarios901 document patterns—real‑time hotlines, videos and accounts—that show local stops turning into immigration detentions and suggest routine operational cooperation rather than isolated federal sweeps [7] [4].
3. Criteria that are supposed to determine targets
ICE and proponents of 287(g) frame the policy narrowly: the stated targets are “removable aliens” engaged in serious criminal activity—gangs, violent crime, human smuggling, drug trafficking and other offenses described in ICE materials [2]. That is the official guideline under which delegated officers receive training and authority to identify and process noncitizens for removal [2] [1].
4. Gaps between guidelines and practice, according to reporting and data
Local reporting and ICE disclosure to researchers show divergence between official criteria and outcomes in Memphis: ICE data supplied via FOIA indicate at least 400 people arrested in the Memphis area during the first seven months of 2025, a 25% increase year over year, and the reporting notes that about one in three arrested had not yet been convicted of a crime—facts community leaders say reflect quieter, more pervasive enforcement that casts a wide net [3]. Observers and elected officials have raised concerns about undercover methods, incidents of alleged misconduct, and the chilling effect on immigrant communities [4] [8].
5. Political incentives and state‑level policies shaping cooperation
State incentives and law changes also shape local behavior: Tennessee enacted measures to steer local agencies toward cooperation, including grants for agencies that enter into ICE agreements and statutory requirements around jail verification of immigration status, while state legislative moves have sought to shield details of local participation from public scrutiny—factors that increase coordination and decrease transparency [5] [9]. Local leaders’ acknowledgement of MPD cooperation with ICE intensified public scrutiny after years of denials, illustrating how political pressures and federal task‑force deployments reshape formerly ambivalent local practices [6].
6. Competing narratives and accountability pressures
ICE and allied political actors insist the focus is public safety and criminal removals, while local watchdogs, volunteers and some elected officials argue the practice sweeps in non‑convicted people, employs covert tactics and erodes trust between police and immigrant communities—prompts for calls to document operations, pursue legal remedies and demand greater transparency [2] [3] [7] [8]. Available reporting documents both the statutory framework and the contested realities on Memphis streets, but it does not provide a complete, independently audited accounting of every arrest or the internal decision‑making that produced those outcomes [3] [4] [1].