Bonneville County Sheriff Samuel Hulse traveled to the Idaho State Capitol in Boise this week to deliver a clear message to state lawmakers: decisions about partnering with federal immigration authorities belong to local officials, not the Legislature.

Hulse, who serves as president of the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association, addressed the Legislature’s Committee on Federalism on Thursday. He argued that requiring local law enforcement agencies to enter into formal agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement would undermine the ability of sheriffs to manage their own jails, budgets, and public safety priorities.

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

His testimony comes after the Idaho Sheriffs’ Association opposed House Bill 659 during the 2026 legislative session. That bill would have required local sheriffs and police departments across the state to sign 287(g) agreements with ICE, which are formal partnerships that authorize local law enforcement officers to perform certain immigration enforcement functions.

The House passed the measure in March on a 41-27 vote, with Rep. Dale Hawkins, a Republican from Fernwood in Shoshone County, listed as a co-sponsor. The Idaho Senate, however, never took up the bill, and it died when the 2026 session adjourned.

Hulse pointed to practical concerns driving the association’s opposition. County jails across Idaho operate under tight capacity constraints, and many rural counties face significant budget limitations. Absorbing the additional responsibilities that come with a 287(g) agreement, Hulse argued, could strain resources that sheriffs depend on for everyday public safety work.

“Mandating 287(g) participation fails to recognize the diversity of Idaho counties,” he said. “Sheriffs must prioritize core public safety responsibilities and the decisions to enter into federal agreement must remain a local one.”

The sheriffs’ opposition to mandated partnerships does not mean Idaho law enforcement is unwilling to cooperate with federal immigration authorities. Hulse noted that sheriffs already voluntarily work with ICE in meaningful ways, including sharing inmate booking information and allowing federal agents to interview and take custody of individuals held in county facilities. That cooperation happens without a formal 287(g) agreement in place.

The bill’s sponsors had included an exit provision allowing local agencies to withdraw from an ICE partnership if they were unable to comply, though critics argued that provision did not resolve the underlying concerns about resources and local authority.

North Idaho has its own stake in this debate. Post Falls police became the first city law enforcement agency in Idaho to voluntarily enter a federal immigration enforcement partnership, a move that illustrated exactly the kind of local decision-making Hulse is now defending at the state level. Post Falls chose to sign a 287(g) agreement on its own terms, without a legislative mandate pushing them into it.

The contrast between agencies that have chosen to participate and those that have not underscores Hulse’s broader argument: Idaho counties vary widely in size, budget, and local priorities. A one-size mandate from Boise, he suggested, ignores that reality.

Hulse has been active on multiple policy fronts. In December, he wrote to Gov. Brad Little and Republican legislative leaders raising concerns about a separate issue involving behavioral health programs, signaling that he views direct communication with state officials as part of his role leading the sheriffs’ association.

The Idaho Legislature is scheduled to reconvene in January for the 2027 session. Whether House Bill 659 or a similar measure will return for another push remains to be seen, but Hulse’s appearance before the federalism committee suggests the sheriffs’ association intends to stay engaged on the question.

The 287(g) program has expanded in visibility nationally since the Trump administration ramped up immigration enforcement priorities after taking office in January 2025. In Idaho, the question of how far the state government can or should go in directing local law enforcement on federal partnerships is now a live political debate heading into next year’s session.