Sheriff warns proposed state ban on local ICE contracts could cost Allegany County

Sheriff Scott Ciccarello told the Allegany County Public Safety Committee on Feb. 4 that recent state action reported by the governor to end local contracts for housing Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainees could cause significant fiscal harm to the county and would likely be litigated. The sheriff said the contracts have provided substantial income to some counties and that terminating them is “extremely short sighted.”

Why it matters: Ciccarello said the county has historically cooperated with federal authorities when officers encounter undocumented people and that local jails sometimes were paid when they participated in federal programs. He warned that losing ICE contracts could mean “hundreds of thousands of dollars” in foregone income for counties that rely on those contracts, and he urged the committee to consider the financial implications for Allegany County.

What the sheriff said: Ciccarello described two related federal arrangements. He said housing ICE detainees is a distinct matter from participation in the 287(g) program, which cross-deputizes local deputies to perform federal immigration enforcement and can bring federal funding, salaries, stipends and equipment. “We're not participating in the 287(g) program” in Allegany County now, Ciccarello said, but he noted other counties that do receive substantial financial benefit when federal operations occur. He also said Albany’s legal counsel and the sheriff’s association are preparing to challenge any state law that would bar local contracts.

Questions from committee members: Committee members asked whether federal law would preempt a state prohibition and whether a ban would also block other federal contracts (for example, with the U.S. Marshals Service). Ciccarello said the county’s legal advisers in Albany contend the measure raises questions about state authority to interfere in county affairs and that the issue is likely to be litigated; he said his understanding is that a ban would target ICE-designated contracts but might still allow contracts with the U.S. Marshals Service, though the matter is not settled.

Background and context: Ciccarello traced a long history of cooperation between local jails and federal agencies dating to INS and older arrangements and said practices have varied depending on federal administrations. He cautioned that county participation in federal programs has financial as well as operational implications and that any state action to end such contracts would have downstream budget effects.

What’s next: The sheriff said the sheriff’s association and county legal counsel were reviewing the measure and preparing for a legal challenge. The committee did not vote on a policy change related to ICE; members instead heard the sheriff’s report and asked clarifying questions.