How have state laws on local cooperation with ICE changed since 2020, and which statutes correlate most strongly with increased ICE arrests?
Executive summary
Since 2020 state-level legal change has moved in two divergent directions: a surge of statutes and agreements that expand local cooperation with ICE—particularly through 287(g) deputization, state mandates to honor detainers, and funding for operations—and a countervailing wave of sanctuary-style restrictions and lawsuits aimed at limiting handoffs and access to data; both sets of changes are strongly associated with shifts in where and how many ICE arrests occur [1] [2] [3]. Empirical analyses find the strongest correlations between increased ICE arrests and state laws or programs that mandate or incentivize local cooperation (including 287(g) task‑force models and state deputization mandates), while states that passed statutory limits on cooperation show lower arrest rates, though causation is complicated by federal priorities and enforcement surges [4] [5] [2].
1. How state laws changed since 2020: expansion of local cooperation and deputization
After 2020 many states and local agencies moved to expand formal partnerships with ICE, notably reviving and proliferating 8 U.S.C. §1357(g) “287(g)” agreements in task‑force form that deputize local officers to enforce federal immigration law and broadening other cooperative programs and funding for state-run operations like Texas’s Operation Lone Star and Florida’s detention expansions [1] [6]. Migration Policy and other trackers document hundreds of new agreements and programmatic investments since 2021–2024 that have brought state and local officers into routine immigration enforcement activities, including jail screening and warrant service officer roles [1] [2].
2. The counter-movement: sanctuary statutes, data protections, and litigation
At the same time, a number of states strengthened legal barriers to cooperation: California and other states enacted successive laws to restrict honoring ICE detainers, limit access to sensitive locations, and curtail information‑sharing with federal immigration authorities; those changes are credited with reducing the share of ICE arrests originating in some jurisdictions [2] [7]. States and municipalities have also pursued litigation and statutory protections—both to block federal deployments and to create civil remedies against federal misconduct—reflecting political backlash after high‑profile incidents involving ICE [3] [8].
3. Which statutes correlate most strongly with increased ICE arrests
Research comparing state-level arrest rates finds the strongest correlations with statutes and agreements that (a) mandate or incentivize local cooperation, including state laws requiring law enforcement to honor ICE detainers or deputize officers, and (b) enable widespread 287(g) task‑force participation that places routine policing under immigration enforcement purview [4] [5] [1]. Analyses and reporting point to states such as Florida, Texas, Tennessee and Louisiana as examples where mandates and large‑scale cooperative programs align with elevated ICE arrest counts, while Illinois, New York and Oregon illustrate the opposite pattern where restrictions are associated with suppressed ICE arrest rates [4] [5] [9].
4. Mechanisms: why these laws change arrest patterns
Mandates and deputization change operational mechanics—local jails become screening points, routine patrol encounters can yield immigration enforcement, and expanded information sharing makes it easier for ICE to identify targets—thereby increasing the pool of people who enter removal proceedings from communities rather than only from border contexts or criminal custody [2] [10]. Conversely, statutory limits on detainers and access reduce handoffs and lower arrests originating from local jails and community settings, a dynamic documented in state‑by‑state arrest shares over recent years [7] [2].
5. Limits, confounders and the question of causation
Correlation is strong but not dispositive: federal enforcement priorities, national surges in arrests under the Trump administration after 2025, resource deployments, and temporary operations (e.g., surge teams) also drive arrest counts, so state laws are a necessary but not always sufficient explanation for changes in ICE arrests [8] [1]. Data sources standardize arrest rates to control for population differences, but researchers caution that legal regimes interact with local implementation, community resistance, and federal tactical choices—so attributing causation to a single statute in isolation is not supported by the available analyses [5] [11].
6. Bottom line and implications
State statutes that mandate or institutionalize cooperation with ICE—especially revived task‑force 287(g) agreements and laws requiring honoring detainers—are the legal instruments most consistently associated with higher ICE arrest rates, while sanctuary‑style restrictions and data protections correlate with lower rates, though the ultimate arrest tally remains heavily conditioned by federal enforcement policy and operational deployments [4] [2] [1]. Journalistic and policy attention should therefore focus less on a single law and more on the interaction between state statutes, local practice, and federal priorities when assessing how legal change translates into enforcement on the ground [5] [8].