SB 62 · 2025 · Senate · Judiciary Committee

Local police immigration enforcement cooperation

(New Title) relative to law enforcement participation in a federal immigration program and relative to cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Prohibits state, county, and municipal governments from impeding law enforcement agencies from participating in federal immigration enforcement agreements such as the 287(g) program, establishes remedies for violations, and authorizes related county correctional cooperation with federal immigration authorities.AI-generated

Status

Signed into law · May 22, 2025

✓Introduced
✓Senate
✓House
✓Governor
✓Law

Analysis

This bill provides that neither the state nor any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall prohibit or impede any state, county, or local law enforcement agency from applying for entry or entering into an agreement with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement to participate in a federal 287(g) program pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1357(g). This bill also provides that unless expressly prohibited by state or federal law, local governmental entities may not prohibit or impede any state or federal law enforcement agency from complying with federal immigration laws, and provides for remedies for violations. This bill further authorizes county corrections facilities to hold individuals subject to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention for up to 48 hours following the resolution of their state charges, excluding Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays, in order to permit assumption of custody by federal authorities, and requires any agency refusing to honor an immigration detainer for an inmate to report each such refusal to the attorney general.

From the bill's official ANALYSIS section.

In the bill's words

Quoted verbatim from the bill as enacted. Passages chosen from the operative text.Computed by this site

“Neither the state nor any county, municipality, or other political subdivision of this state shall prohibit or impede any state, county, or local law enforcement agency from applying for entry or entering into an agreement with the United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement to participate in a federal 287(g) program pursuant to 8 U.S.C. section 1357(g). 38:2 New Chapter;”

RSA 106-P:1

““Law enforcement agency” means any agency charged with enforcement of state, county, municipal, or federal laws or with managing custody of detained persons in this state and includes municipal police departments, sheriff’s offices, state police departments, state university and college police departments, county correctional agencies, and the department of corrections.”

RSA 106-Q:1

“Except as otherwise expressly prohibited by state or federal law, local governmental entities may not prohibit or impede any state or federal law enforcement agency from complying with title 8 of the United States Code.”

RSA 106-Q:2

“Any local governmental entity that violates this chapter may be subject to action by the attorney general, who may file suit against a local governmental entity in a court of competent jurisdiction for a violation of this chapter.”

RSA 106-Q:3

Official record

Bill page — docket & status

gc.nh.gov · the authoritative source

Public testimony

239 signed in online · 45 wrote testimony

3% support97% oppose0% neutral

In their wordsVerbatim, exactly as submitted

“No sanctuary acts! Follow federal law... Those who support sanctuary acts, should be personally liable for crimes committed by dems illegals! Over the padt 4 years there have been countless murders, rapes, and drug deaths.…”

— William Bigg, Goffstownsupports

“I am in full support of our state cooperating with ICE to remove illegal immigrants from our communities.”

— Jacqueline Larochelle, New Bostonsupports

“These "anti-sanctuary" bills are so counter to the ethic of New Hampshire. We value local control. We value decisions being made where they are going to have the most impact. We value a state government that has a light touch.…”

— James Verschueren, Doveropposes

“I am writing to respectfully urge you to vote NO on SB 62, which would prevent local governments in New Hampshire from restricting participation in the federal 287(g) immigration enforcement program.…”

— Blossom Dodge, Concordopposes

“This bill is unnecessary as there are already plenty of procedures and processes in place to ensure good communication between families and school staff. Making them adversaries will not result in good outcomes for students, who should be our focus. Oppose this bill.”

— Dorothy Bauer, Antrimopposes

Verbatim excerpts of submitted testimony, quoted from the testimony tool.

Read the testimony · as of Aug 12, 2026

Votes

yeanay

Starting text: Bill as introduced

Jan 30, 2025SenateCommittee report: Ought to Pass3–2
Overall
60% yea
Jan 30, 2025SenateRoll callOught to PassAdopted15–8How they voted
Overall
65% yea
Party-line vote
Republicans
15–0100% yea
Democrats
0–80% yea
Apr 23, 2025HouseCommittee report· regular calendar: Ought to Pass9–7
Overall
56% yea
May 8, 2025HouseRoll callFloor amendment 2025-1941h (Rep. Scherr)Failed161–199How they voted
Overall
45% yea
Party-line vote
Republicans
2–1981% yea
Democrats
159–199% yea
May 8, 2025HouseRoll callFloor amendment 2025-1957h (Rep. Sweeney)Adopted202–160How they voted
Overall
56% yea
Party-line vote
Republicans
200–0100% yea
Democrats
2–1601% yea
May 8, 2025HouseRoll callOught to Pass with Amendment 2025-1957hAdopted200–162How they voted
Overall
55% yea
Party-line vote
Republicans
199–1100% yea
Democrats
1–1611% yea
Resulting text: Bill as amended by the House
May 8, 2025HouseVoice voteReconsider OTPA (Rep. Sweeney)failed
May 15, 2025SenateRoll callSen. Gannon Moved to Concur with the House AmendmentAdopted15–8How they voted
Overall
65% yea
Party-line vote
Republicans
15–0100% yea
Democrats
0–80% yea
Resulting text: Bill as adopted by both chambers
May 8, 2025HouseVoice voteEnrolled Bill Amendment # 2025-2322eadopted
May 15, 2025SenateVoice voteEnrolled Bill Amendment # 2025-2322eadopted
May 15, 2025SenateVoice voteEnrolledadopted

Hearings and debates

Jan 23, 2025Public hearingSenate Judiciary1:17:03–1:28:0711m 4slocated in the stream transcriptHearing
Apr 9, 2025Public hearingHouse Criminal Justice and Public SafetyWatchnot located in the transcript — opens the full streamPublic Hearing
Apr 23, 2025Public hearingHouse Criminal Justice and Public Safety1:46:31–1:47:391m 8slocated in the stream transcriptMajority Committee Report: Ought to Pass — roll call; Executive Session
May 8, 2025Floor debateHouse floor1:13:02–1:16:513m 49slocated in the stream transcriptOught to Pass with Amendment 2025-1957h — adopted, roll call 200-162; FLAM # 2025-1941h (Rep. Scherr) — failed, roll call 161-199; FLAM # 2025-1957h(NT) (Rep. Sweeney) — adopted, roll call 202-160
May 15, 2025Floor debateSenate floor1:06:38–1:10:013m 23slocated in the stream transcriptSen. Gannon Moved to Concur with the House Amendment — adopted, roll call 15-8; Enrolled Bill Amendment # 2025-2322e Adopted — voice vote; Enrolled Adopted — voice vote

Timestamps locate where this bill is taken up in the chamber's YouTube stream.

Legislative history

Jan 9, 2025SenIntroduced 01/09/2025 and Referred to Judiciary; SJ 3
Jan 23, 2025SenHearing: 01/23/2025, Room 100, SH, 01:15 pm; SC 7
Jan 30, 2025Sen: Ought to Pass, 01/30/2025, Vote 3-2; SC 7A
Jan 30, 2025SenOught to Pass: RC 15Y-8N, MA; OT3rdg; 01/30/2025; SJ 4
Mar 27, 2025HouseIntroduced (in recess of) 03/27/2025 and referred to Criminal Justice and Public Safety HJ 11 P. 110
Apr 9, 2025HousePublic Hearing: 04/09/2025 11:30 am LOB 202-204
Apr 23, 2025HouseExecutive Session: 04/23/2025 11:00 am LOB 202-204
Apr 25, 2025House==CANCELLED== Executive Session: 04/25/2025 10:00 am LOB 202-204
Apr 23, 2025HouseMajority : Ought to Pass 04/23/2025 (Vote 9-7; RC) HC 23 P. 11
Apr 30, 2025HouseMinority : Inexpedient to Legislate
May 8, 2025HouseFLAM # 2025-1941h (Rep. Scherr): AF RC 161-199 05/08/2025 HJ 14 P. 15
May 8, 2025HouseFLAM # 2025-1957h(NT) (Rep. Sweeney): AA RC 202-160 05/08/2025 HJ 14 P. 18
May 8, 2025HouseOught to Pass with Amendment 2025-1957h: MA RC 200-162 05/08/2025 HJ 14 P. 21
May 8, 2025HouseReconsider OTPA (Rep. Sweeney): MF VV 05/08/2025 HJ 14 P. 23
May 15, 2025SenSen. Gannon Moved to Concur with the House Amendment, RC 15Y-8N, MA; 05/15/2025; SJ 13
May 8, 2025HouseEnrolled Bill Amendment # 2025-2322e: AA VV (in recess of) 05/08/2025 HJ 14 P. 62
May 15, 2025SenEnrolled Bill Amendment # 2025-2322e Adopted, VV, (In recess of 05/15/2025); SJ 14
May 8, 2025HouseEnrolled (in recess of) 05/08/2025 HJ 14 P. 62
May 15, 2025SenEnrolled Adopted, VV, (In recess 05/15/2025); SJ 14
May 22, 2025SenSigned by the Governor on 05/22/2025; Chapter 0039; Effective 01/01/2026

Coverage

No reporting linked yet.

Background reading

Evergreen reading on the policy area — spanning perspectives — not coverage of this specific bill.

“Sanctuary” Jurisdictions: Legal OverviewExplainer — legal
Congressional Research Service — What federal law does and does not require of state and local governments, including 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and the constitutional limits on commandeering local police.AI-generated
Sanctuary Policies: An OverviewExplainer
American Immigration Council — A plain-language primer on what “sanctuary” policies actually say, how detainers work, and why the term covers a wide range of local rules.AI-generated
Delegation of Immigration Authority: Section 287(g)Federal program — primary source
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — ICE's own description of the three 287(g) models and what a participating sheriff or police department agrees to — the program the New Hampshire laws protect from local interference.AI-generated
Fact Sheet on Sanctuary Policies and 8 USC 1373Immigrant-rights / legal
Immigrant Legal Resource Center — Argues that § 1373 reaches only information sharing, so most local limits on detainer compliance remain lawful — the counter-reading to the anti-sanctuary case.AI-generated
Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and StatesEnforcement advocacy
Center for Immigration Studies — The restrictionist tally of jurisdictions that decline detainers, built from ICE detainer-refusal data — the dataset most often cited by supporters of bans like this one.AI-generated
Sanctuary policies reduce deportations without increasing crimeAcademic — national evidence
PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) — A 2020 study finding sanctuary policies cut deportations by about a third, with no measurable effect on crime rates and no drop in deportations of people with violent convictions.AI-generated
Know Your Rights: Immigrants’ RightsNH context — civil liberties
ACLU of New Hampshire — New Hampshire-specific guidance on encounters with police, ICE, and Border Patrol — the practical side of what changes when local agencies cooperate.AI-generated

Documents (PDF)

Bill text & amendments link direct to gc.nh.gov; committee reports stream from the state record.