A state law that took effect Jan. 1 is reshaping how Texas's largest counties handle interactions between local jails and federal immigration enforcement, with a hard compliance deadline now less than four months away. Senate Bill 8, passed by the Legislature and codified in Chapter 753 of the Texas Government Code, requires the sheriff of every county with a population over 100,000 that operates a jail — or contracts with a private vendor to run one — to request and enter into a written agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under Section 287(g) of the federal Immigration and Nationality Act. Sheriffs in smaller counties can participate voluntarily but aren't required to.
Under a 287(g) agreement, county jail staff receive federal training and authorization to perform certain immigration-enforcement functions inside the jail — most commonly identifying people held on state or local charges who may also be subject to federal immigration detainers, and coordinating with ICE before those individuals would otherwise be released. The law gives counties flexibility in which of several federal 287(g) models they adopt, with most large Texas counties opting for the more limited "warrant service officer" model, which applies only to people already in custody, rather than the broader "task force" model that authorizes officers to act in the field.
Compliance has moved unevenly since January. Texas entered 2026 with 299 active 287(g) agreements spread across 186 counties — a base built up over previous years — and by May, roughly 76% of Texas counties had signed on. Sheriffs in El Paso and Bexar counties finalized agreements under the warrant service officer model, and Harris County, whose jail led the state with more than 9,500 immigration detainers in recent data, has also moved toward finalizing its agreement. Bexar County's arrangement additionally involves six municipalities that participate in the program at the city level, though local officials in San Antonio have recently called on those cities to reconsider their agreements amid community pushback.
Dallas County has emerged as the most visible holdout. Attorney General Ken Paxton opened an investigation into Dallas County Sheriff Marian Brown in May over what his office characterized as "sanctuary" policies, and formally demanded that she request and enter a 287(g) agreement, giving the county until June 1 to report back to his office. As of this writing, it's not publicly clear whether Dallas County has since entered an agreement or remains in dispute with the Attorney General's office — a gap this outlet was not able to close through available reporting, and one worth watching as the December deadline nears.
The stakes for noncompliance rise sharply after Dec. 1: beginning that date, the law authorizes the state attorney general to sue any sheriff who has failed to request or enter into a required agreement, and sheriffs who request but don't successfully finalize an agreement must keep reapplying at least annually. The state has also attached money to compliance, offering grants tiered by county population — from $80,000 for the smallest covered counties up to $140,000 for counties over a million residents — to help cover training and staffing costs tied to the new requirements.
For Texas conservatives who backed SB 8 as a matter of basic rule-of-law cooperation between state and federal authorities, the law's design — hard population thresholds, an enforceable deadline, and real financial penalties for noncompliance — reflects a deliberate choice to close what supporters saw as gaps left by sheriffs in a handful of counties who had resisted federal cooperation on immigration detainers in years past. With roughly four months left before the Dec. 1 deadline and the state's largest holdout still unresolved, this is a story readers should expect this site to keep following as the date approaches.