HANOVER, NH – The New Hampshire town of Hanover has reportedly amended a prior ordinance that prohibited local law enforcement from cooperating with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a move that was spurred into action in order to adhere to state law requiring said cooperation between police and ICE.
On December 8th, the town of Hanover’s Selectboard held a meeting where a unanimous vote was reached to amend the Fair and Impartial Policing ordinance, particularly the portion where local law enforcement and respective detention facilities were prohibited from cooperating with ICE regarding detainers and general requests for assistance.
This past May, New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte signed into law two anti-sanctuary city bills, effectively making sanctuary practices adopted by cities and towns across the state illegal. As previously reported in Law Enforcement Today, Governor Ayotte said at the time of signing the bills, “There will be no sanctuary cities in New Hampshire. Period. End of story.”
While the Selectboard did include language within the amended policy that explicitly states local police “do not have the authority to independently enforce federal civil immigration law,” the board conceded that there’s no ambiguity to the anti-sanctuary city laws which will be going into effect come January 2026.
To ensure there was no confusion regarding the updated policing policy outlining cooperation with ICE, the Selectboard specifically included language referencing the federal agency, as Board Chair Carey Callaghan cited, “If it’s not said, it’s potentially misunderstood.”
As noted in past reporting from Law Enforcement Today, the town of Hanover had been contemplating how to contend with the fairly straightforward laws signed this past spring, as remaining in violation of said laws would put at risk approximately $350,000 in state funding alongside grants for things like state highways.
Hanover’s updated policy regarding policing mirrors that of Goshen, Indiana, which despite garnering local outrage, officials within the largely left-leaning Indiana community had to update their approach to cooperating with ICE when faced with state law of a similar nature demanding such cooperation.
On December 8th, the town of Hanover’s Selectboard held a meeting where a unanimous vote was reached to amend the Fair and Impartial Policing ordinance, particularly the portion where local law enforcement and respective detention facilities were prohibited from cooperating with ICE regarding detainers and general requests for assistance.
This past May, New Hampshire Governor Kelly Ayotte signed into law two anti-sanctuary city bills, effectively making sanctuary practices adopted by cities and towns across the state illegal. As previously reported in Law Enforcement Today, Governor Ayotte said at the time of signing the bills, “There will be no sanctuary cities in New Hampshire. Period. End of story.”
While the Selectboard did include language within the amended policy that explicitly states local police “do not have the authority to independently enforce federal civil immigration law,” the board conceded that there’s no ambiguity to the anti-sanctuary city laws which will be going into effect come January 2026.
To ensure there was no confusion regarding the updated policing policy outlining cooperation with ICE, the Selectboard specifically included language referencing the federal agency, as Board Chair Carey Callaghan cited, “If it’s not said, it’s potentially misunderstood.”
As noted in past reporting from Law Enforcement Today, the town of Hanover had been contemplating how to contend with the fairly straightforward laws signed this past spring, as remaining in violation of said laws would put at risk approximately $350,000 in state funding alongside grants for things like state highways.
Hanover’s updated policy regarding policing mirrors that of Goshen, Indiana, which despite garnering local outrage, officials within the largely left-leaning Indiana community had to update their approach to cooperating with ICE when faced with state law of a similar nature demanding such cooperation.
For corrections or revisions, click here.
The opinions reflected in this article are not necessarily the opinions of LET
Comments