WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 525

Establishing requirements for a county sheriff operating a jail for the enforcement of detainer requests issued by the United States immigration and customs enforcement, requiring municipal insurance pools to provide coverage for law enforcement that enforces federal laws, requiring the state to pay certain judgments in federal court actions, requiring the attorney general to provide representation in certain civil actions and exempting section 287(g) agreements from certain provisions of the interlocal cooperation act.

2025-2026 Regular Session

SB 525 broadens sheriffs’ use of ICE detainers, expands liability and defense coverage for municipalities, and streamlines 287(g) cooperation, shifting costs and legal representati

Died in Committee
#attorneygeneral #counties #immigrationandnaturalization #lawenforcement
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 525

Summary of SB 525 (Kansas, 2025-2026)

Main purpose and intent

SB 525 aims to regulate how county sheriffs operate jails in the enforcement of federal immigration detainer requests, expand liability and representation provisions related to federal immigration enforcement, and adjust intergovernmental cooperation rules to accommodate section 287(g) programs. The bill also shifts certain costs and protections between local entities, the state, and federal authorities.

Key provisions and changes

  • Detainer enforcement by sheriffs (New Section 1):

    • A county sheriff operating a jail may detain individuals for up to 48 hours based on:
    • Facially sufficient ICE detainer (Form I-247A) issued under 8 U.S.C. §§ 1226 and 1357, or
    • A warrant described in subsection (c).
    • A detainer is facially sufficient if:
    • I-247A states the person’s identity and includes required boxes (probable cause or transfer of custody) and is signed by an ICE official, or
    • It meets A) identity and C) signature and is supported by a warrant or other documentation showing probable cause.
    • Warrants satisfying the detainer include DHS Form I-200 (warrant for arrest of alien) or I-205 (remove/removal warrant or equivalent).
    • Sheriff must: verify sufficiency, inform the detainee, provide a copy of the I-247A, notify ICE, and complete the agency section of the I-247A.
    • Release conditions if detainer is canceled, deemed insufficient, or the detainee proves U.S. citizenship or lawful presence.

  • Municipal insurance pools (New Section 2):

    • Municipal insurance pools must provide liability coverage for law enforcement operations that enforce federal law in cooperation with federal agencies, to the same extent as coverage for state/local enforcement.
    • If the U.S. DOJ or Kansas AG does not provide legal representation in a suit against the covered agency, the pool must provide representation.
    • Pools may also provide representation to protect their own interests if DOJ or the Kansas AG is representing the other party.

  • Civil judgments and immunity (New Sections 3 & 4):

    • Section 287(g) program actions: If a federal civil action yields a judgment against a participating agency or officer acting in good faith, the state will pay the judgment costs or the portion not covered by DOJ.
    • Immunity: Agencies or officers acting in good faith under 287(g) or related detainer custody actions receive civil immunity from liability in such actions.
    • Attorney General representation: The AG must represent or provide representation for the agency/officer in federal civil actions arising from 287(g) agreements or detainer-related activities. For habeas corpus challenges, the AG must represent if the agency/officer acted in good faith.

  • Interlocal cooperation act and 287(g) agreements (New Section 5):

    • Revisions to K.S.A. 12-2904 outline how intergovernmental agreements are formed and approved.
    • For 287(g) agreements, a sheriff may sign without county commission board authorization (exemption from certain subsections), effectively streamlining the process.

  • Legislative and structural notes (New Sections 6–7):

    • Repeals the previous version of 12-2904 and preserves the act’s general framework with modifications.

Who/what would be affected

  • Law enforcement and jails: County sheriffs operating jails in Kansas, including how detainers are reviewed, documented, and acted upon.
  • Municipal insurers: Municipal group-funded insurance pools, which would need to extend coverage to federal enforcement activities and provide legal defense if needed.
  • State government: The Kansas Attorney General and potentially the state to pay certain federal judgments and provide legal representation in related actions.
  • Local governments and agencies: Cities and counties that participate in interlocal/cooperation agreements, particularly those involving ICE partnerships or 287(g) arrangements.
  • Defendants and detainees: Individuals detained under ICE detainers, with new procedures and potential implications for release, citizenship verification, and rights notification.

Procedural and timeline aspects

  • Effective date: The act would take effect on the date of publication in the statute book.
  • Interlocal agreements: Most intergovernmental agreements would require AG approval prior to becoming effective, with a 90-day window for approval or disapproval.
  • Fiscal note and implementation concerns:
    • The bill would impose additional legal representation and potential indemnification duties on the AG and could create state-level judgment payment responsibilities for federal actions.
    • Fiscal analyses note possible increased costs for the AG’s office (estimated in the note) and potential ongoing court/litigation expenses.
    • Local governments (cities and counties) could face higher insurance premiums and costs related to detentions, legal representation, and potential liability exposure.

Fiscal note highlights (as provided)

  • Agencies: Potential need for additional Assistant Attorney General position to manage increased caseloads related to federal civil rights and habeas matters.
  • Estimated costs (FY 2027): Salary and benefits around $133,905, plus operating expenditures of $11,657, totaling about $145,562.
  • State-wide cost implications: Ongoing, long-term costs for litigation and potential judgments; exact amounts indeterminate at this time.
  • Local government impact: Possible increases in insurance premiums and related costs; exact fiscal impact varies by jurisdiction.

Status in committee

  • Died in Committee (as of the provided action history, with last noted action on April 10, 2026).

If you’d like, I can provide a side-by-side comparison with current law, or distill potential policy implications and questions for stakeholders.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.