LOCAL IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT · PUBLIC RECORDS
Local Immigration Enforcement & 287(g) Tracker
Follow the agreement, the agency and the local record.
A national network, built from verified local records
Start with the Mississippi post-deadline tracker or the Tennessee overview, which compares all 95 counties, or the founding Bedford and Doddridge trackers. County pages explain the local agreements and public decisions; this hub explains the program and helps you find the right jurisdiction.
Browse by state and county
Mississippi
The Mississippi 82-county tracker compares dated sheriff and city entries after the October 1, 2026 reasonable-attempt deadline.
- DeSoto County — unresolved Mississippi listing; distinguish Florida namesakes.
- Harrison County — JEM and WSO entries from 2025.
- Rankin County — sheriff JEM/TFM and separate Pearl Police entry.
Tennessee
The Tennessee 287(g) county tracker covers the January 1, 2027 agreement deadline, a searchable 95-county table, and the difference between sheriff and municipal participation.
- Bedford County / Shelbyville — founding tracker; Warrant Service Officer agreement and local oversight records.
- Hamilton County / Chattanooga — Jail Enforcement Model, commission testimony and the separate question of detention capacity.
- Knox County / Knoxville — existing jail agreement plus a September 2026 Task Force Model listing.
- Putnam County / Cookeville — two listed models, with separate February and June 2025 dates.
West Virginia
Our founding Doddridge County tracker examines the Task Force Model agreement and county ICE Fund records. Explore West Virginia local coverage for the state-to-county directory. Tennessee’s deadline does not apply to West Virginia.
We add state and county coverage when the available records can support a useful local reference. We do not generate a page for every name in the federal roster.
What the three 287(g) models mean
Section 287(g) is a mechanism for delegating specified federal immigration functions to trained state or local personnel through a written agreement and ICE supervision. It does not turn every employee of a participating agency into an immigration officer. ICE’s program explanation.
| Model | Main setting and role | What a listing does not establish |
|---|---|---|
| Jail Enforcement Model (JEM) | Identifying people in state or local custody for immigration proceedings | A separate countywide patrol delegation or a removal total |
| Warrant Service Officer (WSO) | Serving and executing specified civil immigration warrants within detention facilities | Task Force Model authority |
| Task Force Model (TFM) | Limited delegated immigration authority during routine police duties or ICE-led task-force activity | That every deputy is trained or that a particular operation used this agreement |
Source: ICE’s model fact sheet. One agency can appear under more than one model. The relevant agreement, officer authorization and date matter more than a single yes/no label.
How to read an ICE agreement tracker
A county name is a starting point. The actual agreement may name the sheriff, a city police department, a corrections department, a constable or a state agency. Those are distinct organizations, even when they work in the same place.
Our pages separate listed participation, agreement model and date, local implementation, and documented outcomes. A roster confirms a federal listing at a particular date. An agreement describes authority and responsibilities. Meeting minutes document statements and public decisions. Financial records are needed to verify actual payments.
An arrest is not a conviction. A detainer, transfer to ICE and removal from the United States are different events. A federal operation in a county cannot automatically be counted as work by its sheriff’s 287(g) program. We attribute agency accounts and reported figures to their source and do not substitute another jurisdiction’s numbers for missing local records.
State mandates and dates to watch
Mississippi: October 1, 2026 was the SB 2114 deadline for covered county detention-facility operators to make a reasonable attempt to execute an agreement. The statute does not require a particular model and provides for quarterly DPS status notification until an agreement is entered. Mississippi tracker and final-text sources.
Tennessee: January 1, 2027 is the agreement deadline for covered POST-certified sheriffs under Public Chapter 1015. Read the state overview for the qualifications, models, funding provisions and evidence gaps.
Texas: the enrolled text of SB 8 sets December 1, 2026 for compliance with its agreement provision and distinguishes covered jail-operating sheriffs from other circumstances. Texas has a separate state grant framework. Enacted SB 8 · Comptroller application and reporting rules. Texas is a research priority; this hub does not yet certify county-by-county Texas compliance.
Federal participation and state-law requirements answer different questions. An agency may already have an agreement before a state deadline. A missing roster entry alone cannot determine whether an agency is exempt, has applied, has been refused or is violating a law.
Source standards and update method
The federal evidence is ICE’s October 2, 2026 participating-agency workbook, examined for this October 7 edition. WorthFighting retained that official workbook during the Bedford research and re-read its agency rows and embedded document links for this phase. New direct ICE downloads returned access errors during this check. Dates below are the workbook’s agreement-date fields unless another source is identified. A linked document is not described as newly downloaded or visually verified when it was not accessible.
The Tennessee state list was retrieved on October 7. We identify source dates separately from our review date, preserve the relevant source files in the editorial record and identify unresolved discrepancies. New county pages require local facts and a source library, not only a shared program description. Corrections can be submitted through WorthFighting’s corrections page.
Direct answers & FAQ
Is every local ICE partnership a 287(g) agreement?
No. A 287(g) agreement delegates specified immigration functions to authorized local personnel. Detention contracts, information sharing and assistance to federal agents require separate evidence.
Can a sheriff participate in more than one 287(g) model?
Yes. Putnam and Knox counties in Tennessee have both Jail Enforcement and Task Force Model entries in the October 2, 2026 ICE roster examined here.
Does a missing county page mean it does not participate?
No. This is a selective coverage network. Consult the dated federal roster and the relevant state and local records.
Official documents & source library
Official records establish the agency and agreement facts. Local reporting, where included, is labeled and used for attributed context.
Update log
— First edition published. Compared the October 2 federal workbook with current state and local sources; documented model dates, source access limits and unresolved implementation questions. Subsequent material corrections will be recorded here.
Send document-backed corrections through WorthFighting’s corrections page. This page is a dated reference; it does not update automatically.