Bill protecting Kansas law enforcement working with ICE advances in Senate
Sen. Mike Thompson supports a bill that offers protections for Kansas law enforcement when they are working with Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. (Photo by Sherman Smith/Kansas Reflector)
TOPEKA — A bill safeguarding protections for Kansas law enforcement agencies working with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement advanced Wednesday in the Senate.
House Bill 2372 sets rules for Kansas law enforcement agencies working officially or unofficially with ICE, defining specifics of enforcing immigration law and mandating insurance coverage.
Sen. Mike Thompson, a Shawnee Republican, called it a “public safety bill” and broke it into three sections.
The first defines the legal authority of Kansas law enforcement to hold a person in jail on an ICE detainer or warrant, and the second requires insurance coverage from municipal insurance pools to cover any liability from doing so.
The third section says the state will cover liability for law enforcement agencies that signed 287(g) agreements with ICE. These agreements include confirming immigration status on people in the agency’s custody who have active or pending criminal charges, according to ICE.
The agreements, which have been signed by about 20 agencies in Kansas, according to an ICE website, are voluntary, Thompson said.
Lawrence Democrat Sen. Marci Francisco questioned Thompson about whether the bill applied to criminals already in jail or to those who might be in the country without authorization.
“If you’re here against the law, you have committed that crime,” Thompson said. “But what they are focusing on are the violent offenders. If they detain somebody on a crime and they’re in jail, they check to verify their status as a citizen.”
Being in the United States without authorization is a civil violation, not a crime.
It’s a point bill opponents made in testimony, and they emphasized that it affects more than violent criminals. The bill allows local law enforcement to hold people up to 48 hours on an immigration detainer form, which is not connected to criminal activity.
The bill “authorizes sheriffs to detain individuals indefinitely solely based on a federal immigration detainer (ICE Form I-247A) or certain administrative warrants,” said Logan DeMond, director of policy and research at the American Civil Liberties Union of Kansas, in written testimony. “These are civil immigration documents, not criminal warrants signed by a judge.”
DeMond said the Fourth Amendment authorizes detention only for probable cause and, most often, with judicial authorization. Immigration detainers, however, are administrative requests issued by federal agents and aren’t reviewed by a judge, he said.
Sen. Cindy Holscher, an Overland Park Democrat who is running for governor, said she was voting against the bill because of its broad language, calling it an unfunded mandate to local law enforcement to support federal immigration laws.
“In its form as it is written, (the bill) does shift legal and financial responsibility for federal immigration enforcement onto Kansas taxpayers because of the actions it requires,” she said.
Holscher said the bill creates increased risk of wrongful detention and due process violations.
“Ordinarily, when government actors violate constitutional rights, financial liability serves as an accountability mechanism,” DeMond said in written testimony. “It encourages careful adherence to constitutional standards. … Kansas taxpayers should not be required to underwrite potentially unconstitutional detention practices.”
Section 1: Detaining immigrants
Thompson said the bill outlines “clear guidelines” regarding warrants and detainers from ICE, including providing a copy of the ICE document to the individual detained, informing ICE the person is in custody, and making sure all sections of the written request are filled out appropriately.
“The sheriff would also be required to release a person if the detainer request is canceled, if it doesn’t meet the requirements of the statute, or if the person provides proof of citizenship,” Thompson said.
Section 2: Insurance
Thompson said the bill requires municipal insurance pools to maintain coverage when law enforcement agencies work with ICE.
He said some agencies with 287(g) agreements received letters from the insurance pools indicating they might lose insurance coverage for the federal immigration work, Thompson said.
“They need that protection in case there’s any kind of civil action as a result of their cooperation with ICE,” Thompson said.
The bill requires coverage for all agencies, even those without 287(g) agreements, and says agencies will receive coverage for enforcing federal laws to the same extent they receive it for state and local laws.
Thompson said that includes agencies other than ICE, including the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
That applies “whether the cooperation is under a written agreement and whether the officers involved are deputized by the federal agency,” the bill said.
Section 3: 287(g) agreements
Section 3 says the state will pay judgment costs or any portion the U.S. Department of Justice doesn’t cover when a Kansas agency or law enforcement officer faces a judgement if they were “acting in good faith,” according to the bill.
Thompson said law enforcement agencies would be immune under state law and the attorney general would provide representation in civil lawsuits, federal civil actions and habeas corpus actions.
Holscher questioned whether the bill increases taxpayer costs. Thompson gave no dollar amount, reiterating that the bill is about addressing violent criminals.
“I guess the question would be at what cost do we allow violent offenders to run free or potentially be released in this case,” he said, pointing to a case in late 2025 when 10 people who were in the country illegally were arrested on violent offenses.
“I don’t think it really adds any cost at all, because it’s just an agreement with the federal authorities to detain that person in jail,” he said.
The fiscal note on the original bill, which was Senate Bill 525, said possible costs associated with legal decisions were unknown. In fiscal year 2027, the bill was projected to cost about $134,000 in salary and benefits and $146,000 in operating expenditures.
“Over the long term, the bill would result in ongoing litigation-related responsibilities and expenses,” the fiscal note said.