Idaho Senate Rejects Third Attempt to Mandate 287(g) Immigration Enforcement Agreements

Lawmakers cite violation of Senate rules and strong opposition from law enforcement groups in rejecting the latest proposal.

Apr. 3, 2026 at 4:49am

Got story updates? Submit your updates here. ›

An abstract, fragmented painting in shades of blue, grey, and white depicting an indistinct government building or legislative chamber, with the image repeated in overlapping geometric waves to convey a sense of motion and tension around the political debate.The Idaho Legislature's repeated attempts to mandate federal immigration enforcement agreements have faced strong opposition, exposing deep divisions over the balance of state and federal power.Boise Today

The Idaho House voted to approve a third proposal to mandate law enforcement agencies in the state to enter into 287(g) agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), allowing local police to perform limited immigration enforcement. However, the bill was rejected in the Idaho Senate after the sponsor acknowledged the amendments violated Senate rules by including text from other pending legislation.

Why it matters

The 287(g) program has been a contentious issue in Idaho, with lawmakers facing pressure from the White House to expand the program while law enforcement groups have expressed strong opposition. This latest failed attempt highlights the ongoing debate over the balance between federal immigration enforcement and local control.

The details

The bill, which was the result of a 'hostile' takeover the night before, would have required all local and county law enforcement agencies in Idaho to apply for 287(g) agreements with ICE. If an agency was 'unable' to enter an agreement, it would have had to publish a statement explaining its reasons. Supporters argued there is strong constituent support for more immigration enforcement, while opponents expressed concerns about ceding too much control to the federal government.

  • On Thursday, the Idaho House voted 37-29 to approve the bill.
  • In the Idaho Senate, the bill sponsor acknowledged the amendments violated a Senate rule and asked for the chamber to reject them, which stopped the bill from moving forward this year.

The players

Rep. Jordan Redman

A Coeur d'Alene Republican who expressed frustration that several attempts to pass immigration-related legislation have failed to move forward.

Rep. Dale Hawkins

A Fernwood Republican and sponsor of the amendments to take over SB 1247, who said he doesn't understand why Idaho can't take a step forward on this issue.

Rep. Britt Raybould

A Rexburg Republican who said she supports local law enforcement working with federal authorities when appropriate, but does not support overriding the discretion of local law enforcement.

Sen. Mark Harris

A Soda Springs Republican who was the original sponsor of SB 1247 before it was amended, and who asked the Senate to reject the amendments that violated Senate rules.

Sen. Kelly Anthon

The Idaho Senate President Pro Tempore who proposed another 287(g) mandate bill, SB 1441, after the original House Bill 659 was held in committee.

Got photos? Submit your photos here. ›

What they’re saying

“We are a conservative state, and on this issue, we can't seem to take a step forward. And I got to be honest with you, folks, I don't understand that.”

— Rep. Dale Hawkins, Fernwood Republican

“I am supportive of our local, regional and state law enforcement working with federal law enforcement when it is appropriate to do so. But the idea that we would allow and encourage the federal overriding of the discretion of our local law enforcement does not sit well with me.”

— Rep. Britt Raybould, Rexburg Republican

What’s next

The Idaho Legislature has adjourned for the year, so any further attempts to pass 287(g) mandate legislation will have to wait until the next legislative session.

The takeaway

The failure of this third attempt to mandate 287(g) agreements in Idaho highlights the ongoing tensions between state lawmakers, local law enforcement, and the federal government over immigration enforcement. The debate is likely to continue, with both sides citing concerns over public safety, local control, and federal overreach.