Documents show the Shasta Sheriff’s Office attempted to enter an agreement with ICE last year. Doing so would have violated state law

Last year, the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office attempted to enter into an agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement that would have given officers immigration enforcement authority. The process was paused last May, and it’s unclear where things stand now. 

Documents recently obtained by Shasta Scout show the sheriff’s office was seeking to enter into what’s known as a 287(g) agreement. The agreement is part of a program operated by ICE that gives state and local law enforcement officers the authority to perform immigration duties under ICE’s direction and oversight.

The 287(g) program, which has been around for three decades, has been gaining national attention as the Trump administration significantly expands contracts with local and state law enforcement agencies as part of its aggressive deportation agenda. More than 1,600 agreements between ICE and law enforcement agencies have been signed throughout the country, and several states have even made it mandatory for law enforcement agencies to enter these agreements with ICE. 

The California Values Act prohibits law enforcement agencies in the state from assisting with federal immigration enforcement. That means agencies are not permitted to enter into 287(g) agreements with ICE, said University of California Irvine law professor Annie Lai, who specializes in immigration law and civil rights. A map on ICE’s 287(g) program site does not document any California law enforcement agencies as having entered into such agreements with ICE. 

But email communication and documents obtained by Shasta Scout show that the Shasta Sheriff’s Office attempted to enter into a 287(g) agreement with ICE last May. Documents indicate the process was paused after an ICE official pointed out that entering such an agreement could violate state law. An ICE press contact directed questions about the agreement to the Shasta County Sheriff’s Office. Sheriff Mike Johnson did not respond to repeated requests for comment on the status of the pending agreement.

What are 287(g) agreements, and what happened when the Shasta Sheriff’s Office tried to enter into one?

The 287(g) program was authorized by Congress in 1996 as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, though it’s been used much more in the past year than any other time since its conception. When a law enforcement agency signs a 287(g) agreement, ICE provides access to resources and training to designated officers to serve in a cooperative capacity with ICE as part of their local or state law enforcement role. ICE covers the costs.

On May 6, 2025, Toni Schlapia, who was the Shasta Sheriff’s Office’s interim executive assistant at the time, sent an email to an address dedicated to the 287(g) program. The email explained that the sheriff’s office wanted to participate in the program, saying Sheriff Johnson had signed the 287(g) memorandum of agreement, which was attached to the email. 

Schlapia noted the sheriff’s attached letter of interest for ICE’s Warrant Service Officer program, which gives law enforcement officers the authority to execute civil immigration warrants on behalf of ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations branch. It’s one of four ways that local law enforcement agencies can cooperate with ICE through 287(g) agreements.

A day after Schlapia sent the email to ICE, Ron Antol, who listed his title as 287(g) national program manager, replied. He first expressed appreciation for the sheriff’s office’s interest in the program and the department’s “role in community safety.” But he raised concerns about how entering these agreements would be impacted by California law, asking if law enforcement agencies in the state are even allowed to enter such agreements with ICE. 

Later that day, Johnson wrote a letter to Antol to “clarify the circumstances under which California law enforcement agencies are permitted to cooperate” with ICE. He explained how the Values Act restricts law enforcement agencies from using resources to assist federal immigration enforcement, but also said that “there are clearly defined exceptions to this policy.” 

Johnson explained how law enforcement agencies are allowed to notify, transfer or cooperate with ICE in cases involving individuals who meet certain criteria, such as ones who have a conviction for a serious or violent felony or a judicial warrant out for their detainment. 

He also emphasized that the sheriff’s office “will assist any law enforcement agency operating in our jurisdiction in the event of an emergency,” adding that if ICE needs assistance on an emergency basis — such as if ICE is “met with violence or resistance when serving a warrant” — the sheriff’s office will send resources to assist and protect the public. 

“I am committed to working with ICE and federal law enforcement officials within the confines of California Law,” Johnson wrote. “Perhaps, I can work with my local County Counsel to create some amendments to the current Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), which would allow the [287(g)] agreement without violating state law.” 

“I want to be clear,” Johnson continued, “the Sheriff’s Office will continue working with the federal government and supporting the agencies tasked with immigration enforcement.” 

In the attachments of the letter, Johnson included the previously signed MOA, but this time with his signature revoked. He said in the letter that the 287(g) application should be placed in a “pending status” while he consults legal counsel. 

While no mention was made of financial incentives in Johnson’s communication, ICE has been offering financial incentives to agencies that sign 287(g) agreements. For example, ICE has been offering full reimbursements for the annual salary and benefits of eligible trained 287(g) officers, as well as overtime coverage up to 25% of the officer’s annual salary, which is funded through H.R. 1, also known as the Big Beautiful Bill. ICE has also been offering performance awards for agencies that detain a certain number of people a day. 

ICE’s press contact responded to Shasta Scout’s questions about a potential collaboration between the Shasta Sheriff’s Office and ICE by directing questions to the sheriff’s office. Johnson did not respond to Shasta Scout’s related questions, including what the motive was behind wanting to enter a 287(g) agreement, if an alternative agreement was ever created and how he plans to work with ICE in the future. Shasta Scout also reached out to the email address dedicated to the 287(g) program to ask if the sheriff’s office has an MOA on file with ICE but received no response.

Here’s what else you should know about the 287(g) program

While the 287(g) program has been in existence for 30 years, it has grown rapidly in the past year. At the end of former President Barack Obama’s administration, 32 law enforcement agencies were participating in the program nationwide. That number jumped to 152 in President Donald Trump’s first term, a number that remained mostly intact during former President Joe Biden’s time in office, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. Now, a little over a year into Trump’s second term, 1,604 law enforcement agencies across the U.S. have signed 287(g) agreements with ICE.

The 287(g) program operates under four models: 

• Jail Enforcement Model: Deputized officers may interrogate suspected noncitizens who have been arrested to determine immigration status.
• Warrant Service Officer program: Officers — both state and local — may be trained, certified and authorized by ICE to serve and execute immigration administrative warrants in their agency’s jail. 
• Task Force Model: Local law enforcement agencies may enforce immigration law during their daily operations. 
• Tribal Task Force Model: Tribal law enforcement agencies may enforce immigration law during their daily operations. 

In a report on the 287(g) program released about a month ago, the ACLU documented that at least 77.2 million people are now living in a county with a local law enforcement agency that has entered into a 287(g) agreement. The ACLU criticized the program in the report, stating among other things that it drains law enforcement agencies’ resources and diverts officers from local public safety matters.

Lai, the University of California Irvine law professor, said the agreements have also been criticized for inviting racial profiling and other civil rights violations.

ICE argues that the 287(g) program protects the country through the arrest and removal of immigrants “who undermine the safety of our nation’s communities and the integrity of U.S. immigration laws.” 

---

Do you have a correction to share? Email us: editor@shastascout.org.