Gratis, Ohio, sits approximately an hour’s drive from Cincinnati. So, when officers from the small department showed up unannounced at three Cincinnati area schools — Western Hills University High School, Rees E. Price Academy and Roberts Academy — claiming to act on behalf of ICE to conduct “wellness checks,” school officials were caught off guard and denied them entry.
| RELATED: Ohio officer resigns, chief placed on leave after visiting schools for immigration ‘wellness checks’
That claim alone raises a red flag. ICE has long maintained that enforcement actions at schools are extremely limited and generally avoided. The agency has explicitly stated it is not conducting enforcement operations at schools or targeting children.
The incident, which resulted in Officer Jeff Baylor’s resignation and Gratis Police Chief Tonina Lamanna being placed on leave, raises important questions about the role of local law enforcement in immigration enforcement — and the limits of that role.
According to reports, ICE confirmed it was aware of the officers’ actions and noted that Gratis had previously participated in a 287(g) agreement, a formal partnership that allows local agencies to assist in specific immigration enforcement functions. That agreement has since been canceled by the township.
So, what went wrong?
How immigration enforcement is supposed to work
To answer that, it’s important to understand how immigration enforcement is structured and where local agencies fit. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a component of the Department of Homeland Security, is primarily responsible for enforcing the nation’s immigration laws. Within ICE, Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) officers are tasked with finding and apprehending individuals in the country illegally, while Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) handles broader criminal cases such as human trafficking, drug smuggling and cybercrime.
| RELATED: What law enforcement needs to know about the 287(g) program and ICE partnerships
Local law enforcement agencies can support ICE in two primary ways. This first is informal — assistance to another agency as part of a joint operation. The second is formal, through programs like 287(g), which allow designated local officers to perform limited immigration enforcement duties These duties are typically tied to individuals already in custody, such as maintaining detention or assisting with warrants until ICE can assume custody.
What these agreements do not do is grant local officers full federal authority or allow them to operate independently as ICE agents. They are not intended to replace ICE’s role in identifying and apprehending individuals for immigration violations.
That distinction is critical — and often misunderstood.
And while formal agreements allow local officers to support ICE in specific ways, their scope is targeted. These partnerships exist because ICE does not have the resources to be everywhere. In practice, 287(g) agreements are designed to let local agencies assist by holding individuals already in custody until ICE can assume control. This is especially important in cases where someone may be in the country illegally but would otherwise be released because their underlying offense does not require continued detention. In those situations, the agreement gives ICE time to respond — particularly when the individual may have a more serious criminal history.
Where the Ohio case breaks from policy
Against that backdrop, the Ohio incident stands out. Officers reportedly identified themselves as acting on behalf of ICE while attempting to access schools for “wellness checks” — an action that does not align with ICE policy or the typical scope of a 287(g) agreement.
Whether this was the result of a misunderstanding, a miscommunication or a breakdown in coordination will be determined by the investigation. But based on what is known, this points to a fundamental issue: a lack of clear role definition understanding between those local officers and federal authority.
When confusion undermines cooperation
Unfortunately, what has happened in some parts of the country, due to this lack of a clear understanding is a breakdown in cooperation between local and federal authorities, driven by misunderstandings about what that cooperation is supposed to look like. In some cases, political and media narratives have framed ICE partnerships as harmful to local communities, despite data showing that a significant percentage of ICE arrests involved individuals charged with or convicted of serious crimes, translating to safer communities thanks to ICE’s work with its partner agencies.
At the same time, the optics of immigration enforcement have come under increased scrutiny — in some cases justifiably — when operations are perceived as overreaching or poorly executed. High-profile incidents have prompted calls from lawmakers for greater oversight and accountability, underscoring how quickly these situations can erode public trust.
This is why it is critical for ICE and local agencies to operate with a clear, shared understanding of roles and responsibilities. The incident in Gratis reflects what can happen when that clarity is lacking. ICE has been explicit that, outside of rare circumstances involving a specific adult with a serious criminal history, it does not conduct enforcement operations at schools or target children.)
So why did ICE say they were aware of the Gratis officers going to the schools in Ohio and why did the officers agree to go there? On its face, it appears to violate ICE’s own protocols and even the 287(g) agreement the town had with ICE. What this sounds like is a failure of clear communication and role understanding between the local ICE office and Gratis police.
Local police who are working with ICE or any federal agency must ensure they have a clear understanding of their role, which could change depending on the federal agency. How a local department supports ICE will be different from the Secret Service or US Marshals. That clarity — reinforced through full briefings — must be the starting point for any collaboration.
For the street officer, understanding your role, asking questions and ensuring you have access to support when encountering a complex immigration situation is key to proper enforcement. Pausing to seek clear guidance can prevent a bad situation from developing.
There will always be complex situations when federal and local agencies work together on a mission. But all must remember that law enforcement is a team sport and every part of that team must be working from the same playbook to succeed.
