Page 7 - PCPA Spring 2026 Bulletin Magazine

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S MESSAGE
ICE and Local Law Enforcement: Authority,
Limits, and Liability
As Executive Director of the Pennsylvania Chiefs of Police
Association, I regularly hear from chiefs across the Commonwealth
who are navigating one of the most legally complex and politically
sensitive issues in modern policing: immigration enforcement.
For agencies in Pennsylvania—particularly those operating within the
Third Circuit's jurisdiction—the distinction between delegation and
cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
is not merely academic. It is operational, legal, and consequential.
Understanding that distinction is essential to protecting our officers,
our municipalities, and the communities we serve.
My goal here is not to advocate for or against cooperation. Rather,
it is to ensure our chiefs clearly understand the authority available to
them, the constitutional limits that bind them, and the liability risks
that accompany missteps.
Delegation: Understanding the 287(g) Framework
Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act—created
by the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility
Act of 1996—permits ICE to formally delegate certain immigration
enforcement powers to state and local law enforcement officers.
When an agency enters into a written 287(g) agreement, designated
officers receive federal training and may perform limited immigration
officer functions under ICE supervision. These functions can include:
•
Arresting and detaining individuals for civil immigration violations
•
Issuing immigration detainers
•
Preparing and serving Notices to Appear in immigration court
Across the country, agencies participate under different models,
including jail-based enforcement and task force models. In
Pennsylvania, participation exists in select counties and agencies.
What I emphasize to our members is this: 287(g) authority must
be formal and documented. Absent such an agreement, local
officers do not possess independent authority to enforce federal civil
immigration law. Acting outside that framework creates significant
exposure.
Cooperation: ICE Detainers and Third Circuit Law
Even agencies without 287(g) agreements frequently encounter ICE
detainers—requests that a local facility hold an individual beyond
their normal release time so ICE can assume custody.
The most important case governing detainers in our region is Galarza
v. Lehigh County.
SPRING 2026 BULLETIN
MY GOAL HERE IS NOT TO
ADVOCATE FOR OR AGAINST
COOPERATION. RATHER, IT
IS TO ENSURE OUR CHIEFS
CLEARLY UNDERSTAND
THE AUTHORITY
AVAILABLE TO THEM, THE
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS
THAT BIND THEM, AND
THE LIABILITY RISKS THAT
ACCOMPANY MISSTEPS.
CONTINUED ON PAGE 8
www.facebook.com/pachiefsofpolice
www.twitter.com/pachiefs
www.instagram.com/pachiefsofpolice
7