A former Democratic governor of New York is warning his own party that Kathy Hochul's new anti-ICE legislative package will invite lawsuits, provoke federal raids, and stick taxpayers with the bill. David Paterson, who served as governor from 2008 to 2010 and once led the state Democratic Party, called the legislation an "egregious mistake" during a Sunday radio appearance, offering a rare public rebuke from inside Hochul's own political coalition.
Albany lawmakers cleared the package last Thursday. The bills would end 287(g) cooperation agreements between local counties and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, block federal agents from entering hospitals and parks, and bar agents from wearing masks that obscure their identities. Hochul has framed the measures as a check on federal overreach.
Paterson sees it differently, and he said so on John Catsimatidis' "Cats Roundtable" show on 77 WABC, as the Daily Caller reported. His core argument is straightforward: the federal government has constitutional supremacy on immigration enforcement, and Albany is picking a fight it cannot win.
"The last I heard, the federal government supersedes the local government. When I was governor, I tried to adhere to that."
That line alone should give Hochul pause. It did not come from a Republican operative or a cable-news pundit. It came from a fellow Democrat who sat in her chair and governed under the same constitutional framework she now appears willing to defy.
Paterson went further than principle. He laid out a practical prediction: county executives across the state could band together and sue Albany for stripping them of the authority to cooperate with federal agents. Nassau County and Suffolk County, he said, are likely candidates to lead that charge.
"Nassau County, Suffolk County, the other counties around the state could ban together and bring a lawsuit against the state legislature itself, and the governor for taking this approach."
Nassau County Executive Bruce Blakeman has already pledged to do exactly that. Blakeman, who is challenging Hochul in the fall gubernatorial race, said he would sue if the new law voids his county's existing ICE contracts. His statement tied the legislation to a broader pattern of what he called Hochul's "pro-criminal policies."
"Common Sense Democrats know that Kathy Hochul has made our neighborhoods less safe with her pro-criminal policies. Governor Paterson is a sensible and thoughtful Democrat who is rightfully appalled with Hochul's support of this dangerous legislation."
Blakeman's political interest in criticizing Hochul is obvious. But Paterson has no such motive. He is not running for anything. He is simply a former governor warning that the current governor has overstepped, and that the consequences will be measurable in legal fees and federal enforcement actions.
Federal border czar Tom Homan has already threatened to deploy more ICE agents to New York if Hochul signs the bills. The exact timing and venue of Homan's statement were not specified, but the threat adds a concrete dimension to Paterson's warnings. Albany's attempt to restrict federal immigration enforcement could produce the opposite of its stated goal: more agents, not fewer, operating inside New York's borders.
Hochul defended the package during a Thursday appearance in Buffalo, framing it in language designed to preempt the "sanctuary" label.
"It'll make New York a leader in addressing ICE overreach while also ensuring that there's no sanctuary for criminals in this state."
The governor wants it both ways. She wants credit for confronting federal enforcement while insisting she is not sheltering criminals. But the bills themselves tell a different story. Ending 287(g) agreements removes a formal mechanism through which local law enforcement cooperates with ICE to identify and detain illegal immigrants. Blocking agents from hospitals and parks creates physical zones where enforcement cannot operate. Banning masks restricts how agents conduct operations that often involve safety risks.
These are not abstract policy tweaks. They are concrete obstacles placed between federal agents and the people those agents are tasked with finding. Hochul can call it a check on overreach. Paterson calls it a serious blunder. The Supremacy Clause of the Constitution will likely have the final word.
Hochul's broader record of policy reversals and political miscalculations has become a recurring theme in New York politics. She has already rolled back climate legislation she once championed, drawing silence from progressive allies who once celebrated her leadership on the issue.
Paterson's criticism lands in a state where Democratic leaders at every level are struggling to deliver on their promises without crashing into fiscal or legal reality. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has retreated from his signature free-bus pledge as budget constraints forced him to abandon what was once a centerpiece of his campaign.
Mamdani's budget troubles extend beyond transit. He recently dropped a proposed property tax hike after months of brinkmanship, leaning instead on Albany cash and budget gimmicks to close the gap. The pattern is familiar: grand progressive promises followed by quiet retreats when the math stops cooperating.
Hochul's anti-ICE package fits the same mold, ambitious progressive signaling that ignores the legal and practical constraints that will eventually assert themselves. The difference is that immigration enforcement involves federal supremacy, not just budget arithmetic. The consequences of miscalculation are not just red ink. They are courtroom losses and escalated federal operations.
The governor's relationship with Washington has already been strained. She tried to pin the LIRR strike on the Trump administration, drawing a sharp response. Now she is moving to restrict federal agents operating under federal authority, inside her own state, on a matter, immigration, where federal power is at its clearest.
Several questions hang over this fight. Hochul has not yet signed the bills, and it remains unclear whether she will do so or let them sit. The specific legal theories that counties might use in their lawsuits have not been detailed publicly. The number of counties currently operating under 287(g) agreements, and the operational impact of voiding those agreements, has not been disclosed.
The full text of the bills has not been widely circulated or analyzed in detail. What the public knows comes from descriptions of the provisions, not from the statutory language itself. That gap matters. Legislative details often contain exceptions, triggers, and enforcement mechanisms that shape how a law actually works, or fails to work.
And then there is the political calendar. Blakeman is running against Hochul this fall. The anti-ICE package gives him a clean line of attack, and Paterson's criticism gives that attack bipartisan credibility. Hochul may have intended the legislation as a rallying point for her progressive base. Instead, she may have handed her opponent a weapon and a Democratic validator in the same week.
David Paterson succeeded Eliot Spitzer as governor and served until 2010. He was never a firebrand. He governed as a pragmatist in a state that often rewards ideological ambition over practical results. His criticism of Hochul carries weight precisely because it is measured. He did not call her reckless or accuse her of bad faith. He said she made a mistake, and then explained, in constitutional terms, why.
That kind of criticism is harder to dismiss than a partisan broadside. Hochul can wave off Blakeman. She can ignore Homan. But a former Democratic governor calmly explaining that the federal government supersedes the state government on immigration, and predicting the lawsuits that will follow, is a different problem.
It is the kind of problem that does not go away when the news cycle moves on. It goes away when a judge rules.
When members of your own party start giving you history lessons on the Supremacy Clause, the smart move is to listen. Albany, as usual, seems inclined to learn the hard way.
