Adds to existing law to establish provisions regarding law enforcement entering into a memorandum of agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Summary
House Bill 473 would require every law enforcement agency in Idaho to apply for a federal Section 287(g) memorandum of agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The bill specifies that agencies should seek participation in a jail enforcement model, as a warrant service officer, or both, and also directs them to pursue any future successor programs. It defines key terms such as ICE, enforcement and removal operations, law enforcement agency, and the Section 287(g) agreement framework under federal immigration law.
If an agency cannot enter into such an agreement, the bill requires it to publish a statement explaining why it was unable to do so and describing any efforts made to establish alternate cooperation with ICE’s enforcement and removal operations. The bill includes an emergency clause and would take effect on July 1, 2025.
Impact
The bill would add a new section to Chapter 6, Title 19 of the Idaho Code and would impose a statewide mandate on state and local law enforcement agencies, including the Idaho State Police, city police departments, and county sheriffs, to seek formal cooperation agreements with ICE under federal immigration authority. It would not itself create new criminal penalties, but it would require agencies to engage in immigration-enforcement-related coordination and to publicly explain any inability to do so, thereby affecting agency policy, administrative practices, and transparency obligations.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the available record. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to reflect a strong pro-enforcement approach to immigration policy and a preference for expanded state-local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The emergency clause suggests the sponsor viewed the issue as urgent.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s requirement that all law enforcement agencies apply for 287(g) agreements, which could be seen as limiting local discretion and imposing administrative burdens on agencies that may lack resources, staffing, or willingness to participate. Supporters would likely favor the bill as a tool for immigration enforcement and public safety, while opponents may object to mandatory participation, potential impacts on community trust, and the requirement that agencies publicly justify nonparticipation.