NYCLU Appeals Ruling That Preserved NCPD-ICE Agreement, Says Lower Court Ruling Was Wrong

NEW YORK, NY — The NYCLU filed an appeal last week in a continuation of its efforts to have courts strike down an agreement between Nassau County police and U.S. Customs Immigration Enforcement (ICE).

The agreement was entered into in March of 2025, and allowed NCPD officers to receive cross-training and cross-designation with the federal agency to aid and expedite the removal of undocumented immigrants from Nassau County.

The Initial Suit

In its initial legal challenge, the NYCLU — on behalf of multiple Nassau County-based community groups including the Episcopal Diocese of Long Island, a Freeport-based Haitian American nonprofit and a Hempstead-based refugee center — said that the agreement had a “devastating” and “chilling effect” on immigrant communities in Nassau, arguing that families were scared to send their children to school, parents were on some occasions scared to leave the house to go to work, and whole families were scared to go to church.

Judge Danielle Peterson ruled that the agreement between NCPD and ICE was lawful, however, finding that the chilling effect described by the NYCLU wasn’t due to the agreement between NCPD and ICE, but due to the presence of ICE on Long Island.

Furthermore, the petition brought by the NYCLU and its cohort was an Article 78 petition, which carries a slightly different scope of review than some other cases.

"ln a proceeding brought pursuant to Article 78 to review an administrative agency's determination that was made without an evidentiary hearing, the standard of review is whether the determination was made in violation of lawful procedure, was affected by an error of law or was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion," Peterson wrote in her February decision.

In her ruling, Peterson found the NCPD-ICE agreement had done none of the three, and that the stated reason for the agreement — “public safety and operational efficiency,” Peterson said — didn’t constitute any of those violations.

The Appeal

In an appeal filed May 19, the NYCLU claims that Peterson erred in her ruling on three questions: Whether or not the community groups have proper legal standing to bring their petition, whether or not the NCPD-ICE agreement was affected by an error of law, and whether or not the agreement was arbitrary and capricious.

The agreement, NYCLU attorneys said in a preliminary statement, “purports to authorize NCPD officers to engage in illegal activity.”

“In essence, NCPD has tried to unlawfully contract its way into engaging in civil immigration enforcement,” the May 19 brief reads. “In the process, it has ripped families apart and profiled and detained Nassau County residents on their way to work, church, and school.”

In that preliminary statement, the NYCLU cited something that has been mentioned several times in lawsuits filed in Nassau County, most recently by the Massapequa School District in its lawsuit over bathroom policies: The difference between federal and state law.

“The lower court erred by relying principally on federal standing principles rather than New York’s permissive, low-threshold standing requirements, which Appellants easily satisfy,” the brief reads. “The court also substantively erred by misapprehending unambiguous New York State and federal law that prohibits NCPD from performing the activities described in the 287(g) Agreement.”

In an interview with Patch Wednesday, NYCLU staff attorney Ify Chikezie said the NYCLU felt immediately upon receipt of Peterson’s ruling that there were issues with it.

While Gov. Kathy Hochul recently introduced legislation to outlaw 287(g) agreements in New York, Chikezie said that legislative effort didn’t much factor into the NYCLU’s decision-making process when it came time to appeal or not appeal.

“I think we always, since we got the lower court’s decision, recognized that there are a lot of concerns with that ruling — that the judge got our case wrong on standing and got our case wrong on the merits,” Chikezie said. “So I think we remained, as always, committed to litigating our case on behalf of our client to the fullest extent possible. I think the fact that Kathy Hochul’s bill has come down, we think it's a good thing for the state, and obviously implicates the 287(g) agreement here, and [those] that have been signed in other counties.”

The appeal is also on Article 78 grounds. In the brief, the NYCLU claims that, "the decision to enter into the agreement was arbitrary and capricious given overwhelming evidence that agreements like the one into which NCPD entered are prone to racially discriminatory enforcement."

As for questions of standing, attorneys claim in the brief that, "the threat of being subject to unlawful arrests and stops by NCPD pursuant to the 287(g) Agreement and the consequential chill of such threat" are a sufficient injury over which to bring the lawsuit.

That assertion differs from Peterson's ruling, in which the judge said that, "“the alleged chilling effect is not being caused by any specific action of the Respondents against the named Petitioners, and none of the Petitioners have alleged a direct injury as a result of Respondents’ actions. Consequently, Petitioners have failed to establish standing."