Citizen in a RepublicNH Bill Briefing
← All bills

HB 1570 · 2026 · House · Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee

Local oversight of immigration enforcement deals

AI-generated

relative to governmental budget authority for agreements for law enforcement agencies to participate in federal immigration enforcement.

Requires a law enforcement agency to obtain approval from its local governmental budget authority, including a cost estimate and public notice, before entering or continuing a Section 287(g) federal immigration enforcement agreement, and allows that authority to terminate the agreement.AI-generated

Status

Killed in the House — Inexpedient to Legislate · February 12, 2026
  1. ✓Introduced
  2. ✕House
  3. Senate
  4. Governor
  5. Law

Analysis

This bill requires local budgetary authority before a law enforcement agency enters into an agreement with the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement to assist in the enforcement of federal immigration law, grants the budgetary authority continuing power to terminate the agreement, and provides for a penalty for failure to comply.

From the bill's official ANALYSIS section.

In the bill's words

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

“Notwithstanding RSA 106-P:1, if a law enforcement agency (LEA) in New Hampshire intends to apply for a Section 287(g) agreement with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) pursuant to this chapter, it must first receive permission from the governmental budget authority (GBA) that has final authority over its budget.”
RSA 106-P:2
“Notwithstanding RSA 106-P:1, as a part of seeking permission from its GBA, the law enforcement agency shall provide the GBA with a formal estimate of the yearly cost to that agency of participation in the Section 287(g) agreement, including an estimate of the number of employee hours that will be devoted to participation in the agreement.”
RSA 106-P:2
“The GBA may decline to approve the agreement based on the cost to the municipality or other political entity of such an agreement.”
RSA 106-P:2
“The LEA shall also provide documented notice to the GBA of the specific provisions of the Section 287(g) agreement that it intends to perform and not perform.”
RSA 106-P:2

Official record

Bill page — docket & status

gc.nh.gov · the authoritative source

Sponsors

Rep. Buzz ScherrDPrime
  • Rep. Paul BerchDDeputy Ranking Member· Judiciary
  • Rep. David MeuseDDeputy Ranking Member· Criminal Justice and Public Safety
  • Rep. Alissandra MurrayDClerk· Criminal Justice and Public Safety

Also: Rep. Chris MunsD

Public testimony

505 signed in online · 110 wrote testimony

98% support2% oppose0% neutral

ForLocal governing bodies should control ICE participation

AgainstBudget-approval requirement would delay public safety cooperation

AI-generatedLeading arguments, summarized by the testimony tool.

Read the arguments

In their wordsVerbatim, exactly as submitted

“I write in support of HB 1570. I represent a small community which is struggling under many budget constraints. The open-ended expenses consequent to participation in a federal adventure of unknown duration is a cost that cannot be born by local taxpayers.…”
— Janet Lucas, Camptonsupports
“Marriage Equality has been the law of the land now since 2015, giving much needed legal status and security to those of us in committed same gender relationships and households.…”
— Diane Root, Wolfeborosupports
“ICE is not following professional law enforcement standards. History will not be kind to the current abuses.”
— Elizabeth Nelson, Derrysupports
“I am writing to respectfully oppose the bill that would require local budgetary authority approval before a law enforcement agency may enter into an agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This proposal would introduce unnecessary delays and political barriers into critical public safety decisions.…”
— Conni White, Portsmouthopposes

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 22, 2026HouseCommittee report· regular calendar: Inexpedient to Legislate7–6
    Overall
    54% yea
  • Feb 12, 2026HouseRoll callInexpedient to LegislateAdopted198–161How they voted
    Overall
    55% yea
    Party-line vote
    Republicans
    197–299% yea
    Democrats
    1–1591% yea

Hearings and debates

  • Jan 22, 2026Public hearingHouse Criminal Justice and Public Safety1:03:41–1:04:521m 11slocated in the stream transcriptCommittee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate — roll call; Public Hearing; Executive Session
  • Feb 12, 2026Floor debateHouse floor56:16–58:472m 31slocated in the stream transcriptInexpedient to Legislate — adopted, roll call 198-161

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

Legislative history

  1. Jan 7, 2026HouseIntroduced 01/07/2026 and referred to Criminal Justice and Public Safety HJ 1 P. 26
  2. Jan 22, 2026HousePublic Hearing: 01/22/2026 11:00 am GP 159
  3. Jan 22, 2026HouseExecutive Session: 01/22/2026 01:30 pm GP 159
  4. Jan 22, 2026HouseCommittee Report: Inexpedient to Legislate 01/22/2026 (Vote 7-6; RC) HC 6 P. 10
  5. Feb 12, 2026HouseInexpedient to Legislate: MA RC 198-161 02/12/2026 HJ 4 P. 17

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.