House Bill 659 — which would have required Idaho law enforcement to enter into 287(g) ICE cooperation agreements — passed the Idaho House 41-27-2. It then came before the Senate State Affairs Committee, where it was killed 4-5 on March 16, 2026.
Idaho sheriffs raised concerns about the bill in the lead-up to the committee vote. Their specific objections included:
- The "any future program" clause — a provision requiring participation in any successor ICE program, which sheriffs argued was a blank check mandate without knowing future costs or obligations
- Unfunded mandate concerns — costs associated with 287(g) implementation would fall to county budgets, which many sheriffs said they could not absorb
- Manpower limitations — the field enforcement component of 287(g) would require officers to perform street-level immigration duties, which smaller departments said they lacked the capacity for
- Liability exposure — holding ICE detainees requires separation from the general jail population and opens counties to civil suits
These concerns contributed to the bill's defeat in committee. The Idaho Ledger's position is that Idaho voters expect their elected sheriffs to work with the legislature to fix these concerns — not use them to kill enforcement cooperation entirely.
Blaine County Sheriff Morgan Ballis — Publicly raised concerns about the "any future program" clause, calling it a legislative mandate that would federally deputize every Idaho law enforcement agency without knowing future program costs or obligations.
Jerome County Chief Deputy Gary Taylor — Raised manpower concerns, stating the office lacked capacity for street-level immigration enforcement and that costs would be difficult to absorb if passed to counties.
Both officials stated they hoped the bill would be amended to address specific concerns — not killed entirely. Their public positions gave committee members cover for NO votes.