Laramie County Sheriff Kozak signed ICE 287(g) agreements without county commission approval or public notice

On May 20, 2025, the Laramie County Sheriff's Office became one of more than 40 agencies nationwide to join U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Section 287(g) Jail Enforcement Model -- the first of three federal immigration-enforcement agreements Sheriff Brian Kozak signed on the department's behalf that year, with Task Force and Warrant Service Officer agreements following roughly a month later. Under Wyoming law, the power to enter contracts on a county's behalf belongs to its board of county commissioners, not the sheriff, and a sheriff may not incur county expenses without the commissioners' written approval. Kozak brought neither decision to the Laramie County Board of County Commissioners, and the ICE partnership took effect without the public hearing or 45-day comment period Wyoming's Administrative Procedure Act requires before a new substantive rule becomes effective.

The sheriff's office went on to spend an estimated $75,000 on the resulting program between September 2025 and January 2026 without written commission authorization, certifying dozens of deputies to perform ICE functions during traffic stops and jail bookings. Deputies used that authority in large-scale highway operations, including a December 22, 2025 campaign with ICE and the Wyoming Highway Patrol on Wyoming Highway 214 that stopped 49 vehicles, 16 of them commercial; the stops led to three ICE arrests, one unrelated arrest, six citations and 12 out-of-service violations. A 287(g)-certified, Spanish-speaking deputy was assigned to ask drivers who could not communicate with English-speaking deputies whether they were "living and working illegally in the United States." Kozak told the Wyoming Tribune Eagle the operation's deterrent effect on immigrants was itself a goal: "The truck drivers that are, of course, legal, tell us that the word is out that those operators are afraid to come into Wyoming now. And they're happy about it, because it means more work for the legal ones."

ACLU of Wyoming advocacy director Antonio Serrano said the operations have not accounted for Wyoming's mixed-status families, telling the Wyoming Tribune Eagle, "There are Wyomingites who are losing loved ones, including parents. It's creating a huge wave of fear through the community." Kozak and Chief Deputy Aaron Veldheer said deputies are trained against profiling and do not ask about immigration status absent a lawful stop, and Kozak has cited his own prior objection to a since-discredited 287(g) program in Maricopa County, Arizona, as evidence his department's version is run differently. Kozak declined to address the specific allegations against him when the underlying lawsuit over the agreements was filed, telling the Wyoming Tribune Eagle only that "it is the policy of Laramie [County] not to comment on pending claims."

Updates

2026-05-26 — ACLU of Wyoming and three local plaintiffs sued Kozak over the agreements [3, 5]

The ACLU of Wyoming, the Unitarian Universalist Church of Cheyenne, Drew's Barbershop and immigrant-advocacy group Juntos Wyoming sued Kozak in Laramie County District Court, alleging he exceeded his statutory authority by signing the three ICE agreements without county commission approval, by incurring the related expenses without written commission authorization, and by failing to follow the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act's rulemaking process. The plaintiffs said the agreements had caused them concrete harm, including the deportation of a barbershop employee stopped for a broken headlight and the diversion of church charity funds to families affected by the enforcement partnership.

2026-08-25 — A judge dismissed the lawsuit on standing grounds without resolving Kozak's authority [6]

Laramie County District Judge Robin Cooley dismissed all three claims, finding the plaintiffs had alleged real injuries from immigration enforcement but had not shown those injuries were connected to the specific harms the commission-authority and rulemaking claims were meant to protect against. The dismissal order stated the court had no occasion to decide "the underlying question of defendant Kozak's authority" to enter the ICE agreements without the county commission's approval, leaving that question -- and the commission's own view of it -- legally unresolved.