Bonneville County Sheriff Samuel Hulse told a legislative committee Thursday that decisions about formal partnerships with federal immigration enforcement belong with local officials — not the state Capitol. Hulse, who also serves as president of the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association, testified before the Legislature’s Committee on Federalism in Boise, pushing back against efforts to require sheriffs and police departments to enter agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The Bill That Died This Session

The testimony comes in the aftermath of House Bill 659, which would have compelled Idaho’s local law enforcement agencies to sign so-called 287(g) agreements with ICE. Those agreements create formal partnerships through which local agencies assist with federal immigration enforcement duties.

The Idaho House passed the measure on a 41-27 vote, but the Senate never took up the bill before the 2026 legislative session adjourned in April. House Bill 659 died without becoming law.

Rep. Dale Hawkins, a Republican from Fernwood, was among the bill’s co-sponsors. The legislation included a provision allowing local agencies to exit an ICE partnership if they were unable to meet the program’s requirements — a carve-out the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association did not view as sufficient to address their core objections.

Sheriffs’ Case Against Mandates

Hulse argued that Idaho’s counties are too different from one another for a statewide participation mandate to make practical sense. He pointed specifically to county jail capacity limitations and budget constraints that vary widely across the state’s 44 counties as reasons why a one-size-fits-all requirement would create problems for smaller or more rural jurisdictions.

“Mandating 287(g) participation fails to recognize the diversity of Idaho counties,” Hulse said. “Sheriffs must prioritize core public safety responsibilities and the decisions to enter into federal agreement must remain a local one.”

Hulse emphasized that Idaho sheriffs are not refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. He said departments currently work with ICE voluntarily — sharing inmate booking information and allowing federal agents to interview and take custody of individuals held in county facilities — without the administrative burden of a formal 287(g) agreement.

“Participation in the ICE partnership programs is voluntary and should remain a decision of locally elected officials who are accountable to their communities they serve,” Hulse said.

Federalism Tensions at the Core

The debate reflects a tension that has surfaced in a number of states as federal immigration enforcement has intensified under the Trump administration: whether state legislatures should compel local agencies to take on federal enforcement responsibilities, or whether that call belongs to county-level elected officials.

Supporters of measures like House Bill 659 argue that formal ICE partnerships strengthen enforcement consistency and close gaps that voluntary arrangements can leave open. Opponents, including the sheriffs’ association, counter that local officials — directly elected and directly accountable to their constituents — are better positioned to weigh those tradeoffs than lawmakers in Boise.

The Committee on Federalism is a fitting venue for that debate, focused as it is on the proper boundaries between state authority and both federal and local governance.

Other Priorities for Hulse

Beyond immigration enforcement, Hulse has been active on other fronts. He wrote to Gov. Brad Little in December about the discontinuation of behavioral health programs — an issue that intersects heavily with county jail operations across Idaho, where sheriffs often absorb the costs of housing individuals with untreated mental illness and substance use disorders.

As Idaho counties continue to navigate tight budgets — a challenge that persists even as the state closed its last fiscal year with a $250 million surplus — Hulse’s argument is likely to carry weight with legislators who represent rural districts where resource constraints are most acute.

What’s Next

The Legislature is scheduled to reconvene in January 2027 for its next regular session. Whether supporters of mandatory ICE partnerships attempt to revive a measure similar to House Bill 659 remains to be seen, but Hulse’s testimony before the interim committee suggests the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association intends to stay engaged on the question well before the session opens.