The clash puts a rural New York sheriff, Governor Kathy Hochul and ICE at the center of a wider fight over who controls immigration enforcement at the local jail level.
A New York sheriff is defying Governor Kathy Hochul’s new law on cooperation with ICE. The conflict concerns a law that seeks to block law enforcement from working with ICE. Madison County Sheriff Todd Hood says Kathy Hochul’s new limits will not stop his office in central New York from contacting federal immigration authorities when someone booked into his jail is accused of a crime.
The dispute matters because it tests where state control over local policing ends and federal immigration enforcement begins. Hood says the law bars certain agreements, not everyday jail notifications. Hochul’s side is trying to curb local immigration partnerships that critics say pull police into federal enforcement.
Hood says ICE calls continue
Hood, the sheriff in Madison County, told WSYR-TV that his office still plans to contact U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement when a person in the county jail is both in the country unlawfully and facing criminal charges, according to reporting cited by The Western Journal.
His position is blunt: the new state law may restrict contracts or formal arrangements with ICE, but he does not see it as a ban on notifying the agency about people already in custody. Hood said ICE would still be called and would still pick up people when appropriate.
The sheriff said his office has honored seven ICE detainers since September in cases involving allegations or convictions connected to serious offenses, including rape, robbery, DWI and weapons offenses, according to the report. Detainers are federal requests asking local jails to hold or notify ICE about people federal authorities believe may be removable.
That distinction is central to Hood’s argument. He is not describing street-level immigration sweeps or workplace raids. He is describing the jail intake process after someone has already been arrested on a local criminal charge.
What Hochul’s law targets
The measure at issue is described in the reporting as the Local Cops, Local Crimes Act, signed by Governor Kathy Hochul. It is aimed at blocking formal or informal agreements between state or local law enforcement and ICE.
Supporters of limits like these generally argue that immigration enforcement is a federal job and that local police should focus on local crimes. They also say close cooperation with ICE can make immigrant communities less likely to report crimes, serve as witnesses or seek help when they are victims.
Hood and other critics see the law differently. To them, a jail holding someone accused of a crime should be able to share information with ICE if that person is believed to be unlawfully present in the United States.
The legal tension is not just political branding. A ban on agreements is not necessarily the same thing as a ban on communication. The unresolved fight is how far New York can go in cutting off local cooperation without running into federal immigration authority or federal information-sharing rules.
A rural county, a statewide fight
Madison County sits in central New York, far from the state’s largest political and media center in New York City. That geographic distance is part of why the dispute has drawn attention: a rural sheriff is openly challenging a statewide policy backed by a Democratic governor.
Hood framed his stance as a public-safety issue, not an immigration dragnet. He said Madison County has many people without legal status who work in agriculture and stay out of trouble, and he drew a line between those residents and people who end up in his jail on criminal charges.
That argument is designed to blunt one of the strongest criticisms of local ICE cooperation: that it can turn routine policing into immigration screening. Hood’s counterclaim is that his office is dealing with people who have already entered the criminal justice system.
Still, critics of local ICE partnerships often warn that the line can blur quickly. Once local agencies make immigration status part of jail processing, they argue, communities may view police as an arm of federal deportation enforcement even when the original arrest is local.
The attorney general warning
The New York attorney general’s office has objected to Hood’s past collaboration with ICE, according to the reporting. Hood dismissed the warning as political and said it would not change how his office handles criminal defendants who trigger immigration concerns.
That raises the practical question of enforcement. If a sheriff continues to notify ICE without maintaining a written agreement, what exactly would state officials do next? The available reporting does not spell out whether the state would seek an injunction, impose administrative consequences or take another route.
The wording of the law will matter. So will the specific conduct. A standing partnership with ICE, a dedicated notification policy, access to jail records, honoring detainers and making one-off calls can carry different legal implications.
For now, Hood appears to be betting that the state cannot stop every form of cooperation. His message is that he may lose a contract or formal arrangement, but not the ability to alert ICE when someone in custody has a separate immigration issue.
Federal challenge adds pressure
The law is also being challenged by the Trump administration, according to the source report. That federal challenge could turn the Madison County dispute into part of a broader test over immigration federalism: how much room states have to restrict cooperation with federal immigration officers.
States and cities across the country have spent years arguing over so-called sanctuary policies, detainers and jail notifications. Courts have often treated these issues in narrow terms, separating mandatory local participation from voluntary information sharing and distinguishing federal requests from binding orders.
That is why Hood’s language matters. If he says his office will simply notify ICE, that may create a different legal fight than if he had said Madison County would maintain a prohibited agreement. If the state says informal cooperation itself violates the law, the conflict could become sharper.
For New Yorkers outside Madison County, the immediate effect may be limited. But the precedent could matter for every county jail in the state. Sheriffs, police chiefs and county attorneys will be watching to see whether the state draws a hard line or lets informal notification continue.
What remains unsettled
The biggest unanswered question is whether this becomes a courtroom fight involving Hood directly. So far, the public dispute is built around the sheriff’s stated refusal to change course, the state’s warning and the broader federal challenge to the law.
It is also unclear how often similar ICE notifications happen across New York, and whether other sheriffs will follow Hood’s approach. A single rural county can become a symbol quickly, but statewide enforcement depends on dozens of local agencies with different politics, legal advice and jail practices.
The cleanest takeaway is that Hochul’s law has not ended the debate over local ICE cooperation. It has moved the argument to a more technical but highly consequential place: contracts, detainers, notifications and the fine print of what it means to work with ICE.
Hood is presenting his stance as common sense in criminal cases. Supporters of the law see the restriction as a safeguard against local police becoming immigration agents. The next stage will show whether New York’s new policy can survive both political defiance and legal challenge.
Leave a Reply