Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (“INA”) authorized the creation of a program that allows state and local law enforcement agencies to act as immigration enforcement agents.This policy brief reviews the recent history of 287(g) agreements and how they’ve proliferated, describes the three 287(g) agreement models, examines a case study of escalating 287(g) programs in Florida, delves into the programs’ dangers and harms, and provides some recommendations for local communities that want to stop 287(g) agreements in their tracks.

A resource highlighting interior enforcement practices within the Harris county region of Houston, Texas.

In this Resource Toolkit, we will address recent changes affecting students and school campuses and what students, parents and caregivers, and school administrators can do to prepare for immigration enforcement action at schools while highlighting the constitutional protections that remain a pillar of our democracy.

Community members across the country are reporting visits from immigration and other federal officers seeking to meet with certain children who entered the United States unaccompanied. These children are often referred to as “unaccompanied children” (UCs) because at the time they were arrested by immigration (such as crossing the border), they were not with a parent or legal guardian. Although these visits are sometimes described as “wellness checks,” they are part of a broader, coordinated effort to locate and deport some vulnerable young people and their sponsors. It is crucial for families and immigrant communities to stay informed, exercise their rights, and seek legal support when needed.

ILRC submitted a comment to USCIS in response to the revisions published on June 13, 2025 to guidance for disability waivers of the English and civics requirement for naturalization. ILRC opposed the 2025 revisions as they rely on a false narrative that fraud is rampant in the disability waiver process.

In recent months, the Department of Homeland Security has begun filing thousands of motions to recalendar administratively closed proceedings. This trend is raising questions about how attorneys and accredited representatives can respond to these motions and protect their clients’ interests, particularly in cases that have been administratively closed for many years. This advisory explores those questions and offers strategy considerations when determining how to proceed in each case.

This tool offers a template that practitioners can use to help identify possible asylum eligibility. The screening questions are intended to elicit information about the basis of an asylum claim, identify possible bars and challenges, and flag areas where further follow-up may be needed. Accompanying the screening tool are some notes to help guide practitioners in assessing relief and spotting potential issues.