Westmoreland County’s sheriff’s office has pulled out of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Jail Enforcement Model, quietly backing away from a recent agreement that had become a flashpoint in local politics. The move follows months of criticism from county commissioners and residents who argued Sheriff James Albert entered into a 287(g)-style partnership with ICE without enough public oversight. Now county leaders and advocates want answers about what, if anything, was ever put into practice under the deal.
As reported by WTAE, the sheriff’s office said it ended participation because it does not own, operate, or manage the county prison and that stepping away does not change its willingness to work with federal, state, or local law enforcement, including ICE. County Commissioner Ted Kopas told the station he discovered this week, by checking ICE’s website, that Westmoreland was no longer listed as a cooperating agency, and said that, to his knowledge, the agreement had never been put into practice. The sheriff’s office has framed the change as an administrative fix, even as commissioners continue to debate whether a formal rescission or added oversight is still needed.
What the Jail Enforcement Model Does
The Jail Enforcement Model is a version of ICE’s 287(g) program that focuses on local jails. It trains local corrections staff to identify and process people in custody for potential immigration violations. According to Prison Policy Initiative, the model allows local officers to prepare immigration paperwork, interview detainees about their status, and coordinate transfers to federal custody. Critics say those steps can turn relatively routine arrests into deportation cases and can blur the line between local policing and federal immigration enforcement.
How It Sparked Local Pushback
The agreement quickly became a flashpoint at county meetings, where residents lined up to urge commissioners to rescind the deal and demand more transparency about county resources and potential liability. As detailed in county meeting minutes, dozens of speakers argued that the sheriff’s unilateral move bypassed normal checks and balances and could commit county personnel and tax dollars to federal immigration enforcement without a public debate. Commissioners repeatedly called for legal analysis and asked to see the written terms of the agreement in plain view.
Legal Questions and County Authority
Commissioners have maintained that the sheriff did not have the authority to sign a binding deal with ICE without their approval, and some say legal memos back them up. According to reporting from the Mon Valley Independent, officials warned the arrangement could expose the county to liability and pressed for either a formal rescission or a clear public accounting of what had been signed and how far it had gone.
What’s Next
It remains unclear whether the sheriff’s withdrawal will be followed by formal rescission paperwork, or whether the change simply reflects that the plan never left the drawing board. The sheriff’s office told WTAE that because the county does not operate the prison in the way ICE’s model expects, the agreement was never implemented, which currently leaves the issue in largely administrative territory.
Advocates for immigrant rights and county residents say they are not ready to drop the matter and will keep pushing for public transparency. Commissioners have kept the topic on their meeting agendas while the county works through any legal or operational fallout. In the coming weeks, residents will find out whether this quiet withdrawal finally ends the controversy or simply resets the fight over how much control local officials should cede to federal immigration enforcement.
