Bonneville County Sheriff Samuel Hulse told Idaho lawmakers last Thursday that local agencies should not be required to enter formal partnerships with federal immigration authorities, arguing that such decisions belong to elected sheriffs answerable to their own communities.

Hulse, who also serves as president of the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association, testified before the Legislature’s Committee on Federalism at the State Capitol in Boise. His remarks came in the wake of House Bill 659, a measure that would have mandated local law enforcement agencies sign 287(g) agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

A Mandate That Didn’t Make It

The House passed HB 659 in March by a vote of 41 to 27, but the Idaho Senate never took up the bill. It died when the 2026 legislative session adjourned. Hulse’s testimony signals that the underlying policy debate is far from settled heading into the 2027 session.

Rep. Dale Hawkins, a Republican from Fernwood who co-sponsored the bill, noted during the session that the legislation included an exit provision allowing agencies to withdraw if they could not comply with the requirements. Supporters framed the mandate as a way to ensure consistent immigration enforcement statewide.

Local Resources, Local Accountability

Hulse laid out two primary reasons why some sheriffs may decline to enter formal ICE agreements: capacity constraints at county jails and budget limitations that make the added responsibilities difficult to absorb. He argued that mandating participation ignores the operational realities facing smaller agencies across Idaho.

Crucially, Hulse emphasized that Idaho sheriffs already cooperate with federal immigration enforcement on a voluntary basis. That cooperation includes sharing inmate booking information with ICE and allowing federal agents to interview and take custody of individuals held in county facilities.

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

He also drew a clear line on where he believes primary enforcement responsibility lies. “What I want to make clear is that it is the responsibility of the federal government to protect our nation from illegal immigration,” Hulse said, framing his opposition to the mandate not as resistance to immigration enforcement, but as a matter of proper allocation of duties between state and federal government.

Sheriffs’ Association Position

The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association formally opposed HB 659 during the 2026 session, a notable stance given that Idaho sheriffs broadly support cooperation with ICE in practice. The association’s argument centered on the distinction between voluntary cooperation — which is already widespread — and a state-imposed mandate that could strain local resources without corresponding funding.

The 287(g) program allows local law enforcement agencies to enter agreements with ICE and perform certain immigration enforcement functions. Agencies that sign those agreements take on additional duties and responsibilities, which is the core of the sheriffs’ concern about an unfunded or under-resourced mandate from the state Capitol.

Broader Legislative Context

The debate over local immigration enforcement authority fits into a broader pattern of the Idaho Legislature wrestling with the boundaries between state mandates and local control — a recurring tension across multiple policy areas. Several laws passed during the 2026 session reshaped how state policy interacts with local institutions, from schools to housing.

Hulse also wrote to Gov. Brad Little and Republican legislative leaders last December regarding behavioral health programs, suggesting he has been active in shaping legislative priorities beyond immigration enforcement.

What Comes Next

With the 2026 session adjourned, no legislative action on ICE agreements is expected until lawmakers reconvene in January 2027. Hulse’s testimony before the Committee on Federalism suggests the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association intends to remain engaged on the issue before any similar legislation is reintroduced.

Whether House Republicans who backed HB 659 will attempt to revive the mandate next session — potentially with modifications addressing the capacity and budget concerns raised by the sheriffs — remains to be seen. The 41-27 House vote indicates a majority of representatives supported the concept, even as it stalled in the Senate.