Wyoming House Bill HB0276

Wyoming 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/23/25
• Failed: 3/3/25

Caption

State agreements to perform immigration functions.

Summary

HB0276 would require every Wyoming county sheriff, in consultation with the county board of commissioners, to seek and enter into a written agreement with the U.S. Attorney General or Department of Justice under 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g). These agreements would authorize county participation in certain federal immigration enforcement functions, including enforcement of immigration and customs laws, detentions, removals, and investigations. The bill also requires annual reporting by sheriffs to the Wyoming Attorney General on negotiation status, whether an agreement was declined, and any communication or cooperation with federal authorities if no agreement is reached. The bill further directs the Wyoming Attorney General to compile and report this information to the Joint Judiciary Interim Committee each year. As an enforcement mechanism, a county that fails to enter or even attempt to enter the required agreement would become ineligible for state-administered federal funds tied to law enforcement and law enforcement training for any fiscal year of noncompliance, unless the federal government has declined to enter into an agreement with that county.

Impact

HB0276 would add a new statutory requirement in Wyoming law governing county sheriffs and their relationship with federal immigration enforcement. It would create W.S. 18-3-612 and impose a statewide mandate for counties to pursue 287(g)-style agreements with the federal government, while also establishing reporting duties to the state attorney general and legislative committee. The bill would affect county sheriffs, county commissioners, the Wyoming Attorney General, and counties’ access to certain state-administered federal law enforcement and training funds.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill faced resistance in committee: the House Appropriations Committee motion to do pass failed 3-4. No transcript discussion was provided, so there is no recorded committee debate to indicate detailed arguments for or against the measure. Based on the vote, support appears to have been present but not enough to advance the bill out of committee.

Contention

The main point of contention is the bill’s mandate that counties must seek immigration-enforcement agreements with federal authorities, backed by the loss of state-administered federal law enforcement funds for noncompliance. Supporters likely view the bill as strengthening cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and giving counties a formal role in that effort, while opponents may object to the mandate, the funding penalty, and the burden placed on counties and sheriffs. Another potential issue is that the bill requires counties to attempt agreements even though the federal government may decline to enter them, which the bill addresses with an exemption from penalties if a refusal is reported.