Senate Judiciary reviews amendment to require governor sign-off on local immigration agreements

The Senate Judiciary chair opened a Feb. 28 committee discussion of a proposed committee amendment (draft 1.1) to S.44, a condensed immigration bill, saying the amendment was on the screen and available to witnesses.

Rick Sable, representing the Office of Blittsland Council, walked the committee through the draft. Sable said the amendment would keep the existing statutory language that requires the governor — in consultation with the attorney general — to authorize agreements between the state and federal immigration or customs authorities, and would remove the current carve-out that allows local agencies to enter such agreements during a declared state or national emergency. “No state, county, or municipal law enforcement agency or officer shall enter into 1 of these agreements unless the governor authorized the agreement,” Sable said, summarizing the amendment’s clarified language.

The amendment as described by Sable refers to a statute added in 2017 (cited in committee as “20 DSA 46 52”) and to federal authorities cited in testimony as “8 USC 13 87 g” (commonly referenced in discussion as 287(g)) and “19 USC 14 o 1.” The draft would make gubernatorial authorization the sole path for local participation except where the governor signs an agreement.

Committee members raised operational questions about what the change would mean at the Canadian border. One committee member asked how the amendment would affect existing programs run with federal partners for drug and weapons interdiction along the border (referred to in testimony as “Operation Stoner”), noting those missions are described as protective and not directed at immigration enforcement. The committee member asked whether those activities would require prior gubernatorial approval under the rewritten statute.

Sable said he had reached out to the administration at the Department of Public Safety (DPS) that morning and invited DPS to testify when the committee resumes. “They are invited to testify if they wish, first thing next [week],” Sable said, noting existing agreements that predate the amendment likely already required gubernatorial approval under the 2017 statute. He said the committee should ask DPS whether current operations rely on the emergency carve-out or on prior approvals from the governor’s office.

Senator Bechowski said she supported narrowing the exception but expressed a separate concern. “I am concerned that it doesn't include any of the, First Amendment protections that the ACLU suggested,” Bechowski said, asking for follow-up on whether the ACLU’s recommended language had been incorporated. Sable said he had discussed the ACLU and attorney general’s points previously and would follow up.

No formal vote was taken. The committee directed staff to invite DPS and to follow up with the attorney general’s office and other stakeholders so the committee could address operational and constitutional questions. The chair said the bill would be among the first items when the committee returns and expressed hope the bill could move early in the next week unless unforeseen issues arise.

Why it matters: The amendment would remove a carve-out that currently allows local agencies to enter into certain federal immigration- or customs-related agreements during declared emergencies. If adopted, the change would centralize authorization in the governor’s office and could affect ongoing cooperative operations with federal partners along the Canadian border and elsewhere.

The committee will revisit S.44 when DPS or other witnesses are available to clarify how existing agreements were authorized and whether specific border programs would be affected.