Texas Sheriffs Must Sign ICE 287(g) Agreements by December 1, 2026: What the Law Says, What a Traffic Stop Can Involve, and What a Lawyer Can Review

What Changed, and When

The statute. Senate Bill 8, passed by the 89th Texas Legislature in 2025, added Chapter 753 to the Texas Government Code. Section 753.051 provides that the sheriff of each county that operates a jail, or contracts with a private vendor to operate one, “shall request and enter into an immigration law enforcement agreement” that authorizes the sheriff and the sheriff’s officers, employees and, where applicable, contractors to enforce federal immigration law. The chapter defines that agreement as a written agreement with ICE under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g), or a similar federal program.

The dates. The Act took effect on January 1, 2026. Section 2 of the enrolled bill states that “not later than December 1, 2026, the sheriff of each county shall comply with Section 753.051(a).” A sheriff who requests an agreement but does not obtain one must request again at least once a year, and must annually provide proof of the attempt to the Texas Attorney General under Section 753.153.

Money and enforcement. Subchapter C directs the Texas Comptroller to run a grant program for participating sheriffs, with awards set by county population: $80,000 for counties under 100,000 residents, $100,000 for 100,000 to 499,999, $120,000 for 500,000 to 999,999, and $140,000 for counties of one million or more. Section 753.154 authorizes the Attorney General to sue a sheriff who fails to comply, in a district court of that sheriff’s county, for equitable relief plus court costs and attorney’s fees. The Comptroller must report to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Speaker by April 1 of each even-numbered year on participation and on any enforcement actions.

What 287(g) is. Section 287(g) lets ICE delegate limited immigration enforcement authority to state and local officers under a written memorandum of agreement. According to ICE’s program page, there are three models. The Jail Enforcement Model lets officers identify and process removable non-citizens who are already in the agency’s jail on pending or active criminal charges. The Warrant Service Officer model trains and authorizes officers to serve ICE administrative warrants on people already in the agency’s custody. The Task Force Model lets officers exercise limited immigration authority “while performing routine police duties,” and share information directly with ICE. Chapter 753 does not specify which model a sheriff must choose; it requires an agreement that states its own “scope, duration, and limitations.”

The numbers this week. The Texas Tribune reported on September 2, 2026, citing the latest ICE statistics, that 432 Texas law enforcement agencies have signed 514 agreements with ICE across the three models, and that 314 of the 514 are task force agreements. The Tribune reported that a month into the current presidential term only 28 Texas agencies had any agreement with ICE, and that the participants now include the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Gillespie County Sheriff’s Office. The Tribune also cited a New York Times analysis published the prior week finding that ICE is making more than 380 arrests a day in Texas, that about 14 percent of ICE arrests nationwide now come through 287(g) agreements, up from about 3 percent in January 2025, and that Texas has recorded nearly 10,000 detentions through the program.

The Central Texas Case Behind This Week’s Coverage

The Tribune’s September 2 report was built around the case of Brian José Morales García, a 25-year-old Austin resident. According to the Tribune’s reporting, the vehicle he was riding in was stopped near Fredericksburg in April 2026 by a Texas DPS officer for a window tint check; Gillespie County deputies also responded. Morales has said he was born in Denver, grew up in Mexico, holds dual citizenship, and offered to produce the birth certificate and Social Security card kept at his home in Austin. The Department of Homeland Security has said its agents did not arrest a citizen and had determined he was in the country unlawfully. He was held for five days, signed paperwork agreeing to removal, and was deported to Mexico. On August 30, 2026, the Tribune reported that after his lawyers filed a civil rights lawsuit and submitted his certified Colorado birth record, hospital records and witness affidavits, the U.S. Department of Justice agreed to allow him to re-enter the country while the lawsuit continues. The Austin American-Statesman reported that DHS released him to his attorney at the Laredo border and that his legal team intends to pursue damages. This site covered his return in a separate post on August 31.

The Tribune quoted Morales’s attorney, Kate Lincoln-Goldfinch, describing the stop as the product of profiling, and quoted the American Immigration Council’s policy director predicting more such errors as local partnerships expand. It also quoted state Senator Charles Schwertner, who carried SB 8, stating during debate that proper training can address concerns about bias. This page reports those positions as attributed statements and takes none of them as its own; the point of law that matters to a reader is that the same partnership structure is now required, by statute, in every Texas county that runs a jail.

Who in Texas This Reaches

• Every county with a jail. Chapter 753 applies to the sheriff of each county that operates a jail or contracts one out, which covers the large majority of Texas’s 254 counties. The December 1, 2026 date applies statewide; it is not limited to border counties or large metros.
• Anyone stopped by an officer in a task force agency. Under the task force model, the immigration question can arise during ordinary police work rather than only after a booking. The Tribune reported that DPS, which patrols highways statewide, and the Gillespie County Sheriff’s Office are among the task force participants; ICE publishes the current list of participating agencies and the model each has signed.
• Passengers as well as drivers. In the Fredericksburg case, the stop was for a window tint violation and the person removed was a passenger.
• Anyone booked into a county jail on any charge. Under the jail enforcement and warrant service models, screening happens in the jail. A misdemeanor arrest, an unpaid-ticket warrant, or a charge that is later dismissed can still put a person in front of an officer exercising delegated immigration authority.
• U.S. citizens and lawful residents whose documents do not match. The Tribune’s reporting on the Morales case noted that his Mexican identification carried a different first-name spelling and birth date than his U.S. records. People born abroad to U.S. parents, naturalized citizens, and dual citizens are the groups most likely to be caught by a mismatch.
• Families across Houston, Dallas–Fort Worth, San Antonio, Austin, El Paso and the Rio Grande Valley, where the Tribune has estimated the state’s roughly 1.7 million undocumented residents are concentrated, and the rural and Hill Country counties where task force agreements and highway enforcement overlap.

What This Changes Legally

• A duty on sheriffs, not a new offense for residents. Chapter 753 imposes obligations on sheriffs and gives the Attorney General a remedy against a sheriff who does not comply. It does not itself create any new crime or penalty for a member of the public. The immigration authority officers exercise under an agreement comes from federal law and from the terms of the individual memorandum of agreement, which Section 753.052 requires to state its scope, duration and limitations.
• Who must carry what. Federal law, at 8 U.S.C. § 1304(e), requires a non-citizen aged 18 or older who has been issued a registration document to carry it. No federal or Texas statute requires a U.S. citizen to carry proof of citizenship, a point Morales’s attorney made to the Tribune in April. In practice, the Fredericksburg case turned on documents that were at home rather than in the vehicle.
• Existing Texas law already limits local “sanctuary” policies. As the Tribune noted, a 2017 state law bars local governments from adopting policies that prohibit officers from asking about immigration status, and a 2023 law creating a state offense of illegal entry took effect in spring 2026 after litigation. Chapter 753 sits on top of both.
• Paperwork signed in custody has consequences. The Tribune reported that Morales signed removal paperwork after five days in custody because he feared months of detention. Whether a signed stipulated removal or voluntary departure can be reopened or challenged is a question immigration lawyers work through case by case; it depends on what was signed, what was explained, in what language, and how much time has passed.
• Records may be hard to get. The Tribune reported that DPS withheld most of its records on the Fredericksburg stop under a Texas Public Information Act exception for pending criminal investigations, that the Attorney General’s office ruled in July that DPS could withhold them, and that ICE has told Texas and Florida agencies to seek federal permission before releasing records generated under a 287(g) agreement. Obtaining a stop, booking and transfer record can therefore require a lawyer’s request rather than an ordinary open-records letter.

None of this determines any individual’s status or the outcome of any case. Whether a particular stop was lawful, whether a detainer was properly issued, whether a signed document can be undone, and whether a civil claim exists are questions that turn on the specific facts and documents.

What Kind of Claim or Option Might Apply

This page is information, not legal advice, and no article can tell a reader what their status is or what a court would do with their facts. What a lawyer can review includes:

• For a person now in ICE custody after a local stop or booking: a deportation defense lawyer can review whether a bond hearing is available, whether the person has a path to relief such as asylum, cancellation of removal, or a family-based petition, and what deadlines the immigration court has set.
• For a U.S. citizen or lawful resident who was detained: an immigration lawyer can gather the birth, naturalization, or residency records that establish status, present them to the agency or the court, and address a name or date mismatch between U.S. and foreign documents before it becomes a problem again.
• For someone who signed removal paperwork in custody: a lawyer can review what was signed, whether it was explained in a language the person understood, and whether a motion to reopen or another remedy may be available.
• For the person facing the underlying charge: a criminal defense lawyer can review the traffic stop, the arrest, and the charge itself, and coordinate with immigration counsel, because how a state case is resolved can affect immigration consequences.
• For someone who believes the stop or detention violated their rights: a civil rights lawyer can review whether a claim against the agencies involved may exist. The Morales lawsuit is one such case and is pending in federal court.
• For families making a plan: an immigration lawyer can review a family’s documents and options in advance, including powers of attorney for children and property, so that a stop does not become a crisis.

Why Acting Quickly Can Matter

Immigration custody moves fast. A person taken to a county jail on a traffic charge can be transferred to ICE custody and moved to a detention facility in another part of Texas, or another state, within days, and the Tribune’s reporting shows that removal paperwork can be signed within the first week. Bond requests, motions to reopen and requests for records all have windows that begin when custody begins, not when the family finds a lawyer. Documents that prove status or identity are easiest to collect while the person’s family knows where to look. The December 1, 2026 compliance date means the number of Texas agencies exercising delegated immigration authority is expected to keep growing between now and year end. It is best to talk with a lawyer early, while the widest range of options is still open.

Sources

1. Texas Legislature, Senate Bill 8, 89th Legislature, Regular Session, enrolled text (primary document: Section 2, December 1, 2026 compliance date; Section 4, January 1, 2026 effective date).
2. Texas Government Code, Chapter 753, Immigration Law Enforcement Agreements Between Certain Sheriffs and Federal Government (primary document: Sections 753.001, 753.051–753.053, 753.101–753.105, 753.151–753.154).
3. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Partner With ICE Through the 287(g) Program and Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) (the three models and the list of participating agencies).
4. The Texas Tribune, Austin man’s wrongful deportation casts scrutiny on Texas’ embrace of ICE partnerships (September 2, 2026).
5. The Texas Tribune, Federal government allows return of U.S. citizen deported after traffic stop in Central Texas (August 30, 2026).
6. Austin American-Statesman, Austin man deported despite U.S. citizenship returns from Mexico (September 1, 2026).
7. KERA News, Immigration advocates worry as new law requiring Texas sheriffs to work with ICE goes into effect (December 29, 2025).
8. Legal Information Institute, 8 U.S.C. § 1304, Forms for registration and fingerprinting (subsection (e), personal possession of registration document).