Estimated Time to Read: 6 minutes
When the Texas Legislature passed Senate Bill 8 (SB 8), authored by State Sen. Charles Schwertner (R-Georgetown), during the 89th Legislative Session, it formalized and expanded cooperation between county sheriffs and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) under Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
As of the time of publication, official ICE participation data shows that Texas currently has 299 active 287(g) agreements across 241 law enforcement agencies spanning 186 Texas counties. Nationally, ICE lists 1,425 active 287(g) agreements, meaning Texas accounts for roughly one out of every five agreements nationwide.
Texas also has 4 pending 287(g) applications, representing approximately one-third of the 12 pending applications listed nationwide.
SB 8 did not create 287(g) participation in Texas. It institutionalized it. The numbers now show that Texas is not simply participating. It is leading.
What SB 8 Requires Under Texas Law
SB 8, codified in Chapter 753 of the Texas Government Code, requires the sheriff of each county that operates a jail, or contracts with a private vendor to operate a jail, to request and enter into an immigration law enforcement agreement with ICE under Section 287(g).
If a sheriff requests but does not successfully enter into an agreement, the law requires the sheriff to make additional requests at least once annually. Sheriffs who enter into agreements must allocate the necessary personnel and funding to implement the agreement. The attorney general is authorized to bring an action for equitable relief against a sheriff who fails to comply.
The law took effect January 1, 2026, and requires compliance no later than December 1, 2026.
SB 8 is therefore not symbolic legislation. It creates a statutory mandate with an enforcement mechanism.
What Is a 287(g) Agreement? Understanding the ICE Program Models
The federal 287(g) program allows ICE to delegate certain immigration enforcement functions to state and local law enforcement agencies through formal Memoranda of Agreement.
According to ICE’s official 287(g) program materials, agencies may participate under three primary models.
- The Jail Enforcement Model allows officers to identify and process removable aliens who have pending or active criminal charges while those individuals are in local custody. This model operates primarily within the jail setting.
- The Task Force Model allows trained officers to exercise limited immigration enforcement authority while performing routine police duties or participating in ICE-led task forces. ICE oversight remains in place, but this model expands immigration enforcement activity beyond jail intake.
- The Warrant Service Officer Program allows local officers to serve and execute administrative immigration warrants on aliens already in their custody.
ICE also outlines potential benefits to participating agencies, including training, enhanced coordination, and eligibility for certain reimbursement mechanisms in some models.
Texas participation spans all three models. Of the 299 active Texas agreements, 135 are Warrant Service Officer agreements (45%), 117 are Task Force Model agreements (39%), and 47 are Jail Enforcement Model agreements (16%). Texas participation, therefore, extends beyond detention processing into task force and warrant execution functions.
The SB 8 Grant Program: State Funding for 287(g) Participation
SB 8 establishes a state-administered grant program through the comptroller to assist sheriffs with costs associated with participation. Grant awards are tiered by county population, ranging from $80,000 for counties under 100,000 residents to $140,000 for counties over one million.
Grant funds may be used for personnel compensation, reporting requirements, equipment, training, confinement costs, and other expenses associated with participation that are not reimbursed by the federal government. County commissioners’ courts may not reduce a sheriff’s appropriation in response to receipt of a grant.
The comptroller must submit a report by April 1 of each even-numbered year detailing the number of participating sheriffs and the total amount of money distributed. That reporting requirement will provide the first comprehensive state-level accounting under SB 8.
Implementation in 2026: Mandate Meets Existing Participation
The ICE data demonstrates that Texas entered 2026 with a substantial existing footprint in 287(g). With 299 active agreements across 186 counties, most major population centers and a significant share of rural counties are already participating in some capacity.
The practical question under SB 8 is therefore not whether Texas participates in 287(g). It is whether participation becomes universal among counties operating jails by the December 1, 2026, compliance deadline.
The presence of 4 pending Texas applications suggests that expansion is ongoing. As new agreements are executed, Texas’s share of national participation could increase further.
Key Takeaways on Texas SB 8 and ICE 287(g) Participation
Texas now accounts for approximately 21% of all active 287(g) agreements nationwide.
Participation in Texas is diversified across all three ICE models, meaning enforcement activity is not confined solely to jail intake functions. SB 8 converts what was previously a local option into a statutory expectation backed by the attorney general’s enforcement authority. The state grant program lowers fiscal barriers but does not eliminate long-term operational costs.
The next meaningful data point will be the comptroller’s required report, which will quantify statewide compliance under SB 8’s framework.
Political Takeaways: Immigration Enforcement and the Five Liberty Principles
SB 8 illustrates the tension between enforcement objectives and structural limits on government.
From an Individual Liberty perspective, any expansion of enforcement authority requires serious attention to due process, training standards, and accountability. Delegated authority must remain narrow and supervised, particularly under the Task Force Model, where enforcement activity extends beyond jail walls.
From a Personal Responsibility standpoint, SB 8 reflects the Legislature’s view that local officials should not ignore federal immigration law. At the same time, responsibility also requires transparency in how authority is exercised and whether enforcement is targeted and proportionate.
From a Limited Government perspective, SB 8 centralizes state authority over county sheriffs and empowers the attorney general to compel compliance. Even when driven by public safety concerns, this remains a structural expansion of state power over local officials.
From a Free Enterprise and Private Property Rights lens, supporters argue that consistent enforcement promotes order and economic stability. Critics counter that expanding enforcement infrastructure can increase regulatory burdens and litigation risk. Both concerns require careful oversight rather than reflexive expansion.
Texas has chosen to make 287(g) participation part of its statutory framework. The long-term question is not simply how many agreements are signed, but whether implementation remains disciplined, transparent, and consistent with constitutional constraints.
Texas Leads in 287(g) Participation
With 299 active agreements across 241 agencies in 186 counties, Texas stands at the forefront of state participation in ICE’s 287(g) program.
SB 8 ensures that this participation will not remain optional for counties operating jails. By the end of 2026, the state will have a clearer picture of full compliance. The data shows that Texas has already built one of the largest 287(g) enforcement footprints in the country.
The policy debate now shifts from whether Texas should participate to how that participation is implemented and overseen in the years ahead.
Texas Policy Research relies on the support of generous donors across Texas.
If you found this information helpful, please consider supporting our efforts! Thank you!
