H. Rpt. 119-541 accompanies the "Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026" — legislation that falls within the Judiciary Committee's jurisdiction. Committee reports serve as the official legislative history of a bill, documenting what the legislation would do and why the committee recommends passage. Reports of this kind include the committee's section-by-section analysis, any amendments adopted during markup, the Congressional Budget Office cost estimate, dissenting views from minority members, and the legal basis for the legislation. Courts and agencies consult committee reports when interpreting enacted laws, making these documents important beyond the immediate legislative moment.
Official report text. Use Ctrl+F / Cmd+F to search within the document.
House Report 119-541 - SHUT DOWN SANCTUARY POLICIES ACT OF 2026
[House Report 119-541]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
119th Congress } { Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session } { 119-541
=======================================================================
SHUT DOWN SANCTUARY POLICIES ACT OF 2026
----------------
March 12, 2026.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
----------------
Mr. Jordan, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 7640]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 7640) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act
to improve public safety through the enforcement of Federal
immigration law in the interior of the United States, and for
other purposes, having considered the same, reports favorably
thereon with an amendment and recommends that the bill as
amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 6
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 6
Hearings......................................................... 27
Committee Consideration.......................................... 27
Committee Votes.................................................. 27
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 35
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 35
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 35
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects.......................... 35
Duplication of Federal Programs.................................. 35
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 35
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 36
Federal Mandates Statement....................................... 36
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 36
Applicability to Legislative Branch.............................. 36
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 36
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 37
Dissenting Views................................................. 48
The amendment is as follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of
2026''.
SEC. 2. STATE AND LOCAL COOPERATION WITH ENFORCEMENT OF IMMIGRATION
LAW.
(a) In General.--Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373) is amended--
(1) in the header by striking ``communication between
government agencies and the immigration and naturalization
service'' and inserting ``state and local government
cooperation with immigration enforcement'' (and by conforming
the item in the table of contents accordingly);
(2) by striking subsection (a) and inserting the following:
``(a) In General.--The right of any Federal, State, or local
government entity, official, or other personnel to comply with or
enforce the immigration laws (as defined in section 101(a)(17) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17))), or to assist
or cooperate with Federal law enforcement entities, Federal law
enforcement officials, immigration officials, or other personnel
regarding the enforcement of such laws, shall not be prohibited or in
any way restricted.'';
(3) by striking subsection (b) and inserting the following:
``(b) Law Enforcement Activities.--
``(1) In general.--The right of any Federal, State, or local
government entity, official, or other personnel to undertake
law enforcement activities described under paragraph (2) as
they relate to information regarding the citizenship or
immigration status, lawful or unlawful, the inadmissibility or
deportability, or the custody status of any individual
(including any information that could reasonably be used to
determine such status, including personal identifying
information) shall not be prohibited or in any way restricted.
``(2) Law enforcement activities described.--The law
enforcement activities described in this paragraph are the
following:
``(A) Making inquiries to any individual to obtain
the information described under paragraph (1) regarding
such individual or any other individuals.
``(B) Maintaining the information described under
paragraph (1).
``(C) Actions taken by a State, or local government
entity, official, or other personnel to--
``(i) notify the Federal Government regarding
the presence of individuals who are encountered
by law enforcement officials or other personnel
of a State or local government; and
``(ii) comply with requests for such
information from Federal law enforcement
entities, officials, or other personnel.'';
(4) in subsection (c), by striking ``Immigration and
Naturalization Service'' and inserting ``Department of Homeland
Security''; and
(5) by adding at the end the following:
``(d) Contrary Laws Superseded.--The provisions under subsections (a)
and (b) shall supersede any and all State and local laws, ordinances,
regulations, and policies that directly or indirectly prohibit or
restrict, in whole or in part, the activities described in such
subsections.
``(e) Removal.--A civil action or criminal prosecution that is
commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to a State
or local government entity (and an official or other personnel of the
State or local government entity acting in their official capacities)
based on their compliance with subsection (a) or (b) may be removed by
them to the district court of the United States for the district and
division embracing the place wherein it is pending or to the district
court of the United States for the district and division in which the
defendant was served with process.
``(f) Immunity.--A State or local government entity (and an official
or other personnel of the State or local government entity acting in
their official capacities) acting in compliance with subsection (a) or
(b) shall be considered to be acting under color of Federal authority
for purposes of determining their liability and shall be held harmless
for their compliance in any suit seeking any punitive, compensatory, or
other monetary damages.
``(g) Federal Government as Defendant.--Following removal of any
civil action arising out of compliance with subsection (a) or (b) the
United States Government shall be substituted as the party defendant in
the suit.
``(h) Mistreatment Exception.--Subsections (f) and (g) shall not
apply for claims the district court determines arose from any
mistreatment of an individual by a State or local government entity (or
an official or other personnel of the State or local government entity
acting in their official capacities) exercising the rights described
under subsection (a) or (b).
``(i) Federal Funding.--
``(1) Eligibility for certain grant programs.--A State or
local government that is determined, pursuant to paragraph (4),
to restrict the rights described under subsection (a) or (b) or
that has in effect a statute, policy, or practice providing
that it not comply with valid Department of Homeland Security
detainers issued pursuant to section 287(d)(1) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(d)(1)), shall
not be eligible to receive for the period described in
paragraph (6)--
``(A) any of the funds that would otherwise be
allocated to the State or local government under
section 241(i) of the Immigration and Nationality Act
(8 U.S.C. 1231(i)), the `Cops on the Beat' program
under part Q of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control
and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381 et seq.),
or the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Program under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the
Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 (34
U.S.C. 10151 et seq.); or
``(B) any other grant administered by the Department
of Justice or the Department of Homeland Security that
is substantially related to law enforcement,
immigration, enforcement of the immigration laws, or
naturalization.
``(2) Transfer of custody of aliens pending removal
proceedings.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, at the
Secretary's sole and unreviewable discretion, may decline to
transfer an alien in the custody of the Department of Homeland
Security to a State or local government determined, pursuant to
paragraph (4), to restrict the rights described under
subsection (a) or (b), or that has in effect a statute, policy,
or practice providing that it not comply with valid Department
of Homeland Security detainers issued pursuant to section
287(d)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1357(d)(1)), regardless of whether the State or local
government has issued a writ or warrant.
``(3) Transfer of custody of certain aliens prohibited.--The
Secretary of Homeland Security shall not transfer an alien with
a final order of removal, as defined in section 101(a)(47) of
the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(47)), to
a State or local government that is determined, pursuant to
paragraph (4), to restrict the rights described under
subsection (a) or (b), or that has in effect a statute, policy,
or practice providing that it not comply with valid Department
of Homeland Security detainers issued pursuant to section
287(d)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1357(d)(1)).
``(4) Annual determination.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security, in the Secretary's sole and unreviewable discretion,
shall determine for each fiscal year which States and local
governments restrict the rights described under subsection (a)
or (b), or that have in effect a statute, policy, or practice
providing that they not comply with valid Department of
Homeland Security detainers issued pursuant to section
287(d)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1357(d)(1)), and shall report such determinations to the
Committees on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and
the Senate by March 1 of each succeeding fiscal year.
``(5) Reports.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
issue a report on the annual determination made under paragraph
(4) at the request of the Committees on the Judiciary of the
House of Representatives and the Senate.
``(6) Period described.--Any jurisdiction that is determined
to restrict the rights established under subsection (a) or (b)
or that has in effect a statute, policy, or practice providing
that it not comply with valid Department of Homeland Security
detainers issued pursuant to section 287(d)(1) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(d)(1)) shall be
ineligible to receive Federal financial assistance as provided
in paragraph (1)--
``(A) for a period of 1 year; or
``(B) until the Secretary of Homeland Security
certifies that the jurisdiction has come into
compliance, whichever is later.
``(7) Reallocation.--Any funds that are not allocated to a
State or to a local government due to the State or local
government restricting the rights described under subsection
(a) or (b), or that has in effect a statute, policy, or
practice providing that it not comply with valid Department of
Homeland Security detainers issued pursuant to section
287(d)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1357(d)(1)), shall be reallocated to States or local
governments that comply with each such subsection.''.
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall take
effect on the date of the enactment of this Act, except that subsection
(i) of section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373), as added by this section,
shall apply only to prohibited acts committed on or after the date of
the enactment of this Act.
SEC. 3. CLARIFYING THE AUTHORITY OF ICE DETAINERS.
Section 287(d) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1357(d)) is amended to read as follows:
``(d) Detainer of Inadmissible or Deportable Aliens.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who is
arrested by any Federal, State, or local law enforcement
official or other personnel for the alleged violation of any
criminal or motor vehicle law, the Secretary of Homeland
Security shall issue a detainer regarding the individual to any
Federal, State, or local law enforcement entity, official, or
other personnel if the Secretary has probable cause to believe
that the individual is an inadmissible or deportable alien.
``(2) Probable cause.--Probable cause is established if any
of the following criteria is met:
``(A) The individual who is the subject of the
detainer matches, pursuant to biometric confirmation or
other Federal database records, the identity of an
alien who the Secretary has reasonable grounds to
believe to be inadmissible or deportable.
``(B) The individual who is the subject of the
detainer is the subject of ongoing removal proceedings,
including matters in which a charging document has been
served.
``(C) The individual who is the subject of the
detainer has previously been ordered removed from the
United States and such an order is administratively
final.
``(D) The individual who is the subject of the
detainer has made voluntary statements to an
immigration officer or there is other reliable evidence
that affirmatively indicates that the individual is an
inadmissible or deportable alien.
``(E) The Secretary otherwise has reasonable grounds
to believe that the individual who is the subject of
the detainer is an inadmissible or deportable alien.
``(3) Transfer of custody.--If the Federal, State, or local
law enforcement entity, official, or other personnel to whom a
detainer is issued complies with the detainer and detains for
purposes of transfer of custody to the Department of Homeland
Security the individual who is the subject of the detainer, the
Department may take custody of the individual within 48 hours
(excluding weekends and holidays), but in no instance more than
96 hours, following the date that the individual is otherwise
to be released from the custody of the relevant Federal, State,
or local law enforcement entity.
``(4) Removal.--A civil action or criminal prosecution that
is commenced in a State court and that is against or directed
to a State or local government entity (and an official or other
personnel of the State or local government entity acting in
their official capacities), and a nongovernmental entity (and
its personnel) contracted by the State or local government for
the purpose of providing detention, acting in compliance with a
Department of Homeland Security detainer issued pursuant to
this section that temporarily holds an alien in their custody
pursuant to the terms of a detainer so that the alien may be
taken into the custody of the Department of Homeland Security
may be removed by them to the district court of the United
States for the district and division embracing the place
wherein it is pending or to the district court of the United
States for the district and division in which the defendant was
served with process.
``(5) Immunity.--A State or local government entity (and an
official or other personnel of the State or local government
entity acting in their official capacities), and a
nongovernmental entity (and its personnel) contracted by the
State or local government for the purpose of providing
detention, acting in compliance with a Department of Homeland
Security detainer issued pursuant to this section that
temporarily holds an alien in their custody pursuant to the
terms of a detainer so that the alien may be taken into the
custody of the Department of Homeland Security, shall be
considered to be acting under color of Federal authority for
purposes of determining their liability and shall be held
harmless for their compliance with the detainer in any suit
seeking any punitive, compensatory, or other monetary damages.
``(6) Federal government as defendant.--Following removal of
any civil action arising out of the compliance with a
Department of Homeland Security detainer by a State or local
government (and the officials and personnel of the State or
local government acting in their official capacities), or a
nongovernmental entity (and its personnel) contracted by the
State or local government for the purpose of providing
detention, the United States Government shall be substituted as
the party defendant in the suit in regard to the detention
resulting from compliance with the detainer.
``(7) Mistreatment exception.--Paragraphs (5) and (6) shall
not apply for claims the district court determines arose from
any mistreatment of an individual by a State or a local
government (and the officials and personnel of the State or
local government acting in their official capacities), or a
nongovernmental entity (and its personnel) contracted by the
State or local government for the purpose of providing
detention.
``(8) Contrary laws superseded.--The provisions under this
section shall supersede any and all State and local laws,
ordinances, regulations, and policies that directly or
indirectly prohibit or restrict, in whole or in part, the
activities described in such section.
``(9) Private right of action.--
``(A) Cause of action.--Any individual, or a spouse,
parent, or child of that individual (if the individual
is deceased), who is the victim of a murder, rape, any
felony (as such terms are defined by the prosecuting
jurisdiction), or any aggravated felony (as defined in
section 101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)), for which an alien has been
convicted may bring an action for compensatory damages
against a State or local government (or public official
acting in an official capacity) in the appropriate
Federal court if the State or local government, except
as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (D)--
``(i) released the alien from custody prior
to the commission of such crime as a
consequence of the State or local government
declining to honor a detainer issued pursuant
to paragraph (1);
``(ii) has in effect a statute, policy, or
practice not in compliance with section 642 of
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373) and
as a consequence of its statute, policy, or
practice, released the alien from custody prior
to the commission of such crime; or
``(iii) has in effect a statute, policy, or
practice requiring a subordinate local
government to decline to honor any or all
detainers issued pursuant to paragraph (1) and
as a consequence of its statute, policy or
practice, the subordinate local government
declined to honor a detainer issued pursuant to
such section and released the alien from
custody prior to the commission of such crime.
``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
any individual who committed an offense described in
such subparagraph.
``(C) Limitation on bringing action.--An action may
not be brought under this paragraph later than the date
that is 10 years following the commission of the crime,
or death of a person as a result of such crime,
whichever occurs later.
``(D) Proper defendant.--If a subordinate local
government--
``(i) declines to honor a detainer issued
pursuant to paragraph (1) as a consequence of a
prohibition imposed on that subordinate local
government by a State or another local
government with jurisdiction over the
subordinate local government that prohibits the
subordinate local government from honoring the
detainer or fully complying with section 642 of
the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant
Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373); and
``(ii) as a consequence of the statute or
other legal requirement of the State or local
government, the subdivision released the alien
referred to in subparagraph (A) from custody
prior to the commission of the crime referred
to in that paragraph,
the State or other local government that imposed the
prohibition shall be the proper defendant in a cause of
action under this subsection, and no such cause of
action may be maintained against the local government
that declined to honor the detainer.
``(E) Attorney's fees and other costs.--In any action
or proceeding under this paragraph, the court shall
award a prevailing plaintiff a reasonable attorney's
fee and a reasonable expert fee as part of the costs.
``(F) Retroactivity.--Subject to the limitation in
subparagraph (C), an action under subparagraph (A) may
be brought with respect to an offense described in such
subparagraph (A)--
``(i) committed not earlier than 10 years
before the date of enactment of the Shut Down
Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026; or
``(ii) committed on or after the date of
enactment of the Shut Down Sanctuary Policies
Act of 2026.''.
SEC. 4. CONSTRUCTION; SEVERABILITY.
Any provision of this Act, or an amendment made by this Act, held to
be invalid or unenforceable by its terms, or as applied to any person
or circumstance, shall be construed so as to give it the maximum effect
permitted by law, unless such holding is that the provision of law is
invalid or unenforceable, in which event such provision shall be deemed
severable from this Act and shall not affect the remainder of this Act,
or the application of such provision to other persons not similarly
situated or to other, dissimilar circumstances.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 7640, the Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026,
introduced by Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA), would prohibit state
and local governments, officials, or other personnel from
restricting cooperation with federal law enforcement, including
immigration officials, for the enforcement of immigration law.
It would explicitly preempt state and local sanctuary laws that
prohibit or restrict cooperation with federal immigration
officials and compliance with Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) detainers. The bill also would make states and localities
ineligible to receive certain federal grant programs, including
COPS funding, Byrne JAG funding, and certain other Justice
Department and DHS grants, if the states and localities do not
cooperate with federal officials or comply with detainers. It
also would clarify that the DHS Secretary may issue a detainer
for an alien if there is probable cause to believe that the
alien is inadmissible or deportable, defines probable cause,
and creates statutory immunity for jurisdictions that comply
with federal immigration law. The Shut Down Sanctuary Policies
Act of 2026 also would create a private right of action for any
individual (or a spouse, parent, or child of that individual if
the individual is deceased) who is the victim of a murder,
rape, or other felony, against a state or local government or
public official if the state or local government released the
criminal alien perpetrator due to sanctuary policies.
Background and Need for the Legislation
Guided by far-left officials and radical policies,
sanctuary jurisdictions provide a safe haven to criminal aliens
at the expense of law-abiding Americans. Sanctuary policies
limit or prohibit cooperation with federal immigration
officials and shield criminal aliens from accountability,
allowing them to re-offend and terrorize American communities.
Because sanctuary jurisdictions routinely refuse to honor U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers, criminal
aliens are released onto the streets instead of removed from
the United States. Since October 2022, sanctuary jurisdictions
have declined at least 41,085 detainers, according to ICE
data.\1\ In just ten months in 2025, New York released nearly
7,000 criminal aliens after failing to honor ICE detainers.\2\
Crimes involving the released aliens included ``9 homicides,
2,509 assaults, 199 burglaries, 305 robberies, 392 dangerous
drugs offenses, 300 weapons offenses, and 207 sexual predatory
offenses.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Info. provided to the H. Comm. on the Judiciary by U.S. Immigr.
and Customs Enf't, (Feb. 6, 2026) (on file with Comm.). The number of
declined detainers is likely higher, given that ICE may not be aware
that a detainer was declined until the agency encounters an alien who
had previously been released.
\2\Press Release, Sanctuary New York Released Nearly 7,000 Criminal
Illegal Aliens Including Murderers, Terrorists, and Sexual Predators
(Dec. 1, 2025), https://www.dhs.gov/news/2025/12/01/sanctuary-new-york-
released-nearly-7000-criminal-illegal-aliens-including-murderers.
\3\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanctuary jurisdictions in general
A ``sanctuary city'' or ``sanctuary jurisdiction'' is a
city or jurisdiction that refuses to cooperate, or limits
cooperation, with federal authorities in the enforcement of
federal immigration law.\4\ Under the principle that ``illegal
aliens do not have the right to remain in the U.S. undetected
and unapprehended,'' Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) of 1996.\5\
The relevant portion of IIRIRA, codified at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373,
explicitly prohibits any restriction on communication between
state or local entities and federal immigration authorities
relating to an individual's immigration status.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\See William A. Kandel, Cong. Rsch. Serv., IFI14328,
``Sanctuary'' Jurisdictions: Policy Overview (2020); see also Sarah
Peck, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R44795, ``Sanctuary'' Jurisdictions: Federal,
State, and Local Policies and Related Litigation 3-4 (2019).
\5\H. Rep. No. 104-469, part 1, at 277 (1996).
\6\See 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373(a).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the statute's clear prohibition on cities,
counties, and states from restricting communication with
federal immigration authorities, there are, according to an
estimate from the Center for Immigration Studies, upward of 200
such jurisdictions in the United States that:
[H]ave laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions,
policies, or other practices that obstruct immigration
enforcement and shield criminals from [U.S. Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE)]--either by refusing to
or prohibiting agencies from complying with ICE
detainers, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainer
acceptance, denying ICE access to interview
incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding
communication or information exchanges between their
personnel and federal immigration officers.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\Jessica M. Vaughan, Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and States,
Center for Immigr. Studies (Jan. 7, 2025), https://cis.org/Map-
Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States (last accessed Jan. 21, 2026). The
list of sanctuary jurisdictions compiled by the Center for Immigration
Studies is broader than the Justice Department's list.
Sanctuary jurisdictions range from entire states, such as
Colorado, California, New York, and Illinois, to major cities,
such as Chicago; New Orleans; New York, Newark, New Jersey;
Washington, D.C.; Baltimore; and Seattle.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanctuary jurisdictions threaten public safety
ICE is the DHS entity responsible for enforcing federal
immigration laws.\9\ Within ICE, Enforcement and Removal
Operations (ERO) manages the ``immigration enforcement process,
including identification and arrest, domestic transportation,
detention, bond management, and supervised release, including
alternatives to detention.''\10\ As such, ICE ERO is the
primary federal entity that interacts with sanctuary
jurisdictions in the apprehension and detention of violent
criminal aliens.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\About ICE, U.S. Immigr. & Customs Enf't, https://www.ice.gov/
about-ice (last accessed Feb. 18, 2026).
\10\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
ICE detainers keep Americans safe and protect law
enforcement
To ensure that criminal aliens are safely apprehended and
deported, ICE issues detainers for aliens who have been
arrested and who ICE has ``probable cause to believe . . .
[are] removable'' from the United States.\11\ With a detainer,
ICE ``sends a formal request to a law enforcement agency or
correctional facility that has custody of a potentially
dangerous alien'' and asks the law enforcement agency to notify
ICE ``as early as possible before [the agency] release[s] a
removable alien'' and to ``[h]old the alien for up to 48 hours
beyond the time they would ordinarily release them so DHS has
time to assume custody in accordance with federal immigration
law.''\12\ Notably, these aliens are in the custody of a state
or local law enforcement agency for a criminal offense--not
simply because they entered the country illegally or otherwise
lack lawful status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Immigr. Detainers, U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf't, https://
www.ice.gov/immigration-
detainers (last accessed Feb. 5, 2026).
\12\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The images below provide an example of the first two pages
of an ICE detainer sent to a law enforcement agency.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\Info. provided to H. Comm. on the Judiciary by U.S. Immigr. and
Customs Enf't (Feb. 10, 2026) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Sanctuary jurisdictions seek to obstruct immigration
enforcement by ignoring or denying ICE detainers. Doing so puts
law enforcement at risk and endangers the public by ensuring
that dangerous criminal aliens are not released into
communities.\14\ In fiscal year 2019, for example, ICE issued
165,487 detainers for aliens whose criminal histories included
56,000 assaults, 14,500 sex crimes, 5,000 robberies, 2,500
homicides, and 2,500 kidnappings.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\See U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Fiscal Year 2019
Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, at 16 (2020), https://
www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
Document/2019/eroReportFY2019.pdf.
\15\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the effectiveness of detainers, in the first 12
months of President Trump's second term, state and local law
enforcement agencies declined at least 17,864 ICE detainers
according to ICE data, including for aliens charged with crimes
ranging from sexual assault to murder.\16\ This figure exceeds
the number of declined detainers during President Trump's first
term. In fiscal year 2017, state and local law enforcement
agencies ``declined 8,170 [ICE ERO] detainers,'' which directly
led to the release of criminal aliens.\17\ Of these aliens
released because of a declined detainer, ICE ``was only able to
arrest [six] percent of them in [fiscal year 2017].''\18\ At
the time, ICE warned that such a low percentage of arrests
``further illustrate[d] the public safety threat posed by those
sanctuary jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate with ICE's
enforcement efforts, as 7,710 illegal and criminal aliens
remain[ed] at-large as a direct result of those policies.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Info. provided to the H. Comm. on the Judiciary by U.S. Immigr.
and Customs Enf't, (Feb. 6, 2026) (on file with Comm.). The number of
declined detainers is likely higher, given that ICE may not be aware
that a detainer was declined until the agency encounters an alien who
had previously been released.
\17\U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Fiscal Year 2017 ICE
Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, at 9 (2018), https://
www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Report/2017/
iceEndOfYearFY2017.pdf.
\18\Id.
\19\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In fiscal year 2018, ICE arrested 23,124 at-large aliens
with criminal convictions and 6,425 at-large aliens with
pending criminal charges.\20\ In fiscal year 2019, those
numbers were 19,773 and 5,648, respectively; in fiscal year
2020, the figures were 13,303 and 4,034, respectively.\21\ In
its 2019 report, ICE again warned that sanctuary jurisdictions
were ``[o]ne of the biggest impediments to ERO's public safety
efforts.''\22\ In addition to harming communities, refusing to
honor ICE detainers also endangers law enforcement officers as
they must resort to taking custody of the alien in a non-
controlled environment.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Fiscal Year 2020
Enforcement and Removal Operations Report, at 15 (2021), https://
www.ice.gov/doclib/news/library/reports/annual-report/
eroReportFY2020.pdf.
\21\Id.
\22\See U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf't, Fiscal Year 2019 Enf't and
Removal Operations Rep., at 17 (2020), https://www.ice.gov/sites/
default/files/documents/Document/2019/eroReport
FY2019.pdf; see also U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf't, Fiscal Year 2020
Enf't and Removal Operations Rep., at 17-18 (2021), https://
www.ice.gov/doclib/news/library/reports/annual-report/
eroReportFY2020.pdf (emphasizing the impact of non-cooperative
jurisdictions).
\23\See U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf't, Q&A: U.S. Immigr. and
Customs Enf't Declined Detainer Outcome Rep. (DDOR) (Mar. 20, 2017),
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2017/03/20/qa-us-
immigration-and-customers-enforcement-declined-detainer-outcome-report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanctuary jurisdictions' refusal to cooperate with ICE
means that dangerous aliens are released back onto American
streets. From January 20, 2025, through December 1, 2025, New
York's ``failure to honor ICE detainers . . . resulted in the
release of 6,947 criminal illegal aliens, with crimes ranging
from 29 homicides, 2,509 assaults, 199 burglaries, 305
robberies, 392 dangerous drugs offenses, 300 weapons offenses,
and 207 sexual predatory offense.''\24\ In roughly the same
timeframe, Minnesota's sanctuary policies led to the release of
``nearly 270 criminal illegal aliens back onto the streets'' of
the state, including the release of an illegal alien from
Ecuador who ``was charged with vehicular homicide that resulted
in the death of Minnesota mom Victoria Eileen Harwell in August
of 2024.''\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\Press Release, Sanctuary New York Released Nearly 7,000
Criminal Illegal Aliens Including Murderers, Terrorists, and Sexual
Predators, U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (Dec. 1, 2025), https://
www.dhs.gov/news/2025/12/01/sanctuary-new-york-released-nearly-7000-
criminal-illegal-aliens-including-murderers.
\25\Press Release, Mayor Frey's Sanctuary Policies Release Criminal
Illegal Aliens From Jails Back onto Minneapolis Streets to Terrorize
More Innocent Americans, U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (Jan. 14, 2026),
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2026/01/14/mayor-freys-sanctuary-policies-
release-criminal-illegal-aliens-jails-back.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanctuary jurisdictions' pro-criminal alien actions have
deadly consequences. On December 16, 2025, the Fairfax County
Sheriff's Office released Marvin Morales-Ortez, an alleged MS-
13 member from El Salvador, after ``the Fairfax County
Commonwealth's Attorney's Office decided not to move forward
with prosecuting him on charges of malicious assault and
pointing/brandishing a gun stemming from an incident on
September 12.''\26\ Despite an ICE detainer on Morales-Ortez,
the sheriff's office failed to even notify ICE about his
imminent release.\27\ As a result, Morales-Ortez was released
freely into northern Virginia.\28\ One day later, Morales-Ortez
allegedly murdered a man in Reston, Virginia, and has now been
charged with second-degree murder.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\Tom Roussey, Man illegally in the US with criminal history now
charged in Reston homicide, ABC 7 News (Dec. 18, 2025, 5:49 PM),
https://wjla.com/news/local/reston-deadly-shooting-marvin-morales-
ortez-el-salvador-ms-13-gunman-suspect-fairfax-county-police-
department-manhunt-investigation-drone-unit-k9-special-operations-
school-lockdown-dogwood-elementary-school.
\27\Id.; see Nick Minock, `Blood on their hands:' DHS blasts
Fairfax County prosecutors over deadly Reston shooting, ABC 7 News
(Dec. 19, 2025, 2:32 PM), https://wjla.com/news/local/blood-on-their-
hands-dhs-blasts-fairfax-county-prosecutors-over-deadly-reston-
shooting-trump-
administration-virginia-marvin-morales-ortez-illegal-immigrant-steve-
descano.
\28\See Roussey, supra note 26.
\29\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Biden-Harris Administration's radical immigration
policies encouraged sanctuary jurisdictions and
contempt for federal immigration enforcement
The Biden-Harris Administration worked to weaken the first
Trump Administration's efforts to hold sanctuary jurisdictions
accountable for undermining immigration enforcement.\30\ In
addition to not challenging federal court injunctions against
the Trump Administration's sanctuary cities policies,\31\ the
Biden-Harris Administration's Justice Department, beginning in
April 2021, no longer required jurisdictions to cooperate with
ICE as a condition of receiving federal grant funding.\32\ The
number of ICE detainers fell precipitously as a result, from a
monthly average of 13,000 to 14,000 during the first Trump
Administration to a mere 2,200 detainers in March 2021, just
two months after President Biden took office.\33\ Although the
Biden-Harris Administration gradually increased its use of
immigration detainers in response to public pressure against
its radical immigration policies, it still issued 31 percent
fewer detainers than the first Trump Administration.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\See Sarah N. Lynch, U.S. Justice Department ends Trump-era
limits on grants to `sanctuary cities', Reuters (Apr. 28, 2021, 8:31
AM), https://www.reuters.com/world/us/exclusive-us-justice-department-
ends-trump-era-limits-grants-sanctuary-cities-2021-04-28/.
\31\Amy Howe, Court dismisses ``sanctuary cities'' petitions,
SCOTUS Blog (Mar. 5, 2021, 10:58 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/
03/court-dismisses-sanctuary-cities-petitions/; see City Att'y of San
Francisco, Final victory for San Francisco in sanctuary city case
against Trump
administration (Mar. 4, 2021), https://www.sfcityattorney.org/2021/03/
04/final-victory-for-san-francisco-in-sanctuary-city-case-against-
trump-administration/.
\32\See Lynch, supra note 30.
\33\New Data on ICE Immigration Detainers Show Sharp Drop Since
Start of Biden Administration, TRAC Immigr. (June 20, 2023), https://
trac.syr.edu/reports/719/.
\34\See U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf't, Fiscal Year 2024 ICE Enf't
and Removal Operations Rep., at 21 (Dec. 19, 2024), https://
www.ice.gov/doclib/eoy/iceAnnualReportFY2024.pdf; U.S. Immigr. and
Customs Enf't, Fiscal Year 2018 ICE Enf't and Removal Operations Rep.,
at 9, https://www.ice.gov/doclib/about/offices/ero/pdf/
eroFY2018Report.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even Biden-Harris Administration ICE officials criticized
sanctuary policies for endangering the public and law
enforcement alike. In a transcribed interview with the
Committee in 2023, one former high-ranking ICE official said
sanctuary jurisdictions' refusal to honor ICE detainers
endangers ICE officers and undermines ICE's mission.\35\
Another Biden-Harris Administration ICE official told the
Committee how detainer noncompliance for violent criminals
``poses a public safety threat being released into the
community.''\36\ One former ICE official even attributed
sanctuary policies to potentially undermining national
security.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\Transcribed Interview of Former ICE Official 1, U.S. Immigr. &
Customs Enf't, at 79-80 (Sept. 22, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
\36\Transcribed Interview of Former ICE Official 2, U.S. Immigr. &
Customs Enf't, at 36 (Sept. 6, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
\37\Transcribed Interview of Former ICE Official 3, U.S. Immigr. &
Customs Enf't, at 23 (June 27, 2023) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trump Administration has restored commonsense immigration policies
and has cracked down on sanctuary jurisdictions
Since the start of the President's second term, the Trump
Administration has swiftly acted against sanctuary policies. In
an executive order signed on January 20, 2025, President Trump
directed the Attorney General and DHS Secretary to ``evaluate
and undertake any lawful actions to ensure that so-called
`sanctuary' jurisdictions, which seek to interfere with the
lawful exercise of Federal law enforcement operations, do not
receive access to Federal funds.''\38\ President Trump also
instructed the Attorney General and DHS Secretary to
``undertake any other lawful actions, criminal or civil, that
they deem warranted based on any such jurisdiction's practices
that interfere with the enforcement of Federal law.''\39\ On
February 19, 2025, President Trump signed an additional
executive order to ``ensure[] that Federal funds to states and
localities will not be used to support `sanctuary' policies or
assist illegal immigration.''\40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\38\Exec. Order No. 14159, Protecting the American People Against
Invasion, 90 Fed. Reg. 8443 (Jan. 20, 2025), https://
www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-the-american
-people-against-invasion/.
\39\Id.
\40\Fact Sheet, President Donald J. Trump Ends Taxpayer
Subsidization of Open Borders, White House (Feb. 19, 2025), https://
www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/02/fact-sheet-
president-donald-j-trump-ends-taxpayer-subsidization-of-open-borders/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On April 28, 2025, President Trump signed another executive
order that directed the Attorney General to ``publish a list of
States and local jurisdictions that obstruct the enforcement of
Federal immigration laws,'' ``notify each sanctuary
jurisdiction regarding its defiance of Federal immigration law
enforcement and any potential violations of Federal criminal
law,'' and ``pursue all necessary legal remedies and
enforcement measures to end these violations and bring such
jurisdictions into compliance'' with federal law.\41\ The
Justice Department produced its initial sanctuary jurisdictions
list in August 2025.\42\ The most recent list from October 2025
identified 11 states, the District of Columbia, three counties,
and 18 cities--meaning that roughly one-third of the U.S.
population lives under dangerous sanctuary policies.\43\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\Exec. Order No. 14287, Protecting American Communities from
Criminal Aliens, 90 Fed. Reg. 18761 (Apr. 28, 2025), https://
www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/05/02/2025-07789/protecting-
american-communities-from-criminal-aliens?.
\42\Press Release, Justice Department Publishes List of Sanctuary
Jurisdictions, U.S. Dep't of Justice (Aug. 5, 2025), https://
www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-publishes-list-
sanctuary-jurisdictions.
\43\U.S. Sanctuary Jurisdiction List Following Executive Order
14287: Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens, U.S. Dep't
of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/ag/us-
sanctuary-jurisdiction-list-following-executive-order-14287-protecting-
american-communities (last accessed Jan. 20, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Trump Administration has also brough suits against
sanctuary jurisdictions to prevent these jurisdictions from
impeding federal enforcement of immigration laws. For instance,
on February 6, 2025, the Administration filed a complaint
against the state of Illinois, the city of Chicago, and Cook
County, alleging that laws in those jurisdictions ``reflect
their intentional effort to obstruct the Federal Government's
enforcement of federal immigration law and to impede
consultation and communication between federal, state, and
local law enforcement officials that is necessary for federal
officials to carry out federal immigration law and keep
Americans safe.''\44\ Less than a week later, the
Administration sued the state of New York, seeking to prevent
continued implementation of the state's Green Light Law, which
``was passed to directly impair the enforcement of the federal
immigration laws in New York.''\45\ In June 2025, the
Administration filed a lawsuit challenging New York's Protect
Our Courts Act, which ``purposefully shields dangerous aliens
from being lawfully detained at or on their way to or from a
courthouse and imposes criminal liability for violations of the
shield.''\46\ In July 2025, the Justice Department sued then-
New York City Mayor Eric Adams ``and several other city
officials to challenge New York's sanctuary city laws.''\47\ In
Illinois, the Administration is challenging a state law that
``discourages and complicates the use of E-Verify and Form I-9
inspection requirements,'' which ``allow[] any U.S. employer to
electronically confirm the employment eligibility of newly
hired employees'' and ``verify the identity and employment
authorization of individuals.''\48\ In June 2025, the Trump
Administration ``filed a lawsuit against the City of Los
Angeles, California, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass, and the Los
Angeles City Council over policies that Los Angeles enacted
shortly after President Donald J. Trump's reelection to
interfere with the federal government's enforcement of its
immigration laws.''\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\United States v. State of Illinois et al., No. 1:25-cv-1285,
Complaint (N.D. Ill. Feb. 6, 2025).
\45\United States v. State of New York et al., No. 1:25-CV-0205,
Complaint (N.D. N.Y. Feb. 12, 2025).
\46\Press Release, Justice Department Files Lawsuit to Stop New
York's Unlawful ``Protect Our Courts Act'' from Obstructing Immigration
Enforcement, U.S. Dep't of Justice (June 12, 2025), https://
www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-files-lawsuit-stop-new-yorks-
unlawful-protect-our-courts-act-obstructing.
\47\Press Release, Justice Department Sues New York City Over
Sanctuary Policies, U.S. Dep't of Justice (July 24, 2025), https://
www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-department-sues-new-york-city-over-
sanctuary-policies.
\48\Press Release, The Department of Justice Files Complaint
Against Illinois for Encroaching on Federal Immigration Authority, U.S.
Dep't of Justice (May 1, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/
department-justice-files-complaint-against-illinois-encroaching-
federal-immigration.
\49\Press Release, The Justice Department Files Lawsuit Against
Sanctuary City Policies In Los Angeles, California, U.S. Dep't of
Justice (June 30, 2025), https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/justice-
department-files-lawsuit-against-sanctuary-city-policies-los-angeles-
california.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prominent sanctuary jurisdictions
California
California represents one of the most prominent examples of
a sanctuary jurisdiction. In 2013, then-Governor Jerry Brown
signed the Trust Act into law.\50\ Under the Trust Act, illegal
aliens ``would have to be charged with or convicted of a
serious offense to be eligible for a 48-hour hold and transfer
to U.S. immigration authorities for possible deportation.''\51\
In October 2017, Governor Brown signed additional legislation
limiting the ability of state and local law enforcement to work
with federal immigration officials, ``prohibit[ing] local
officials from asking about a person's immigration status or
from working in many cases with federal immigration agents,''
except in cases in which aliens have been convicted of certain
crimes.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\Patrick McGreevy, Signing Trust Act is another illegal-
immigration milestone for Brown, L.A. Times (Oct. 5, 2013, 7:36 PM),
https://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-brown-immigration-20131006-
story.html.
\51\Id.
\52\David Siders, Brown signs `sanctuary state' bill in California,
Politico (Oct. 5, 2017,
2:47 PM), https://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/05/california-
sanctuary-city-jerry-brown-signs-243503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some local jurisdictions in California enacted even harsher
sanctuary policies following President Trump's victory in
November 2024. In December 2024, the San Diego County Board of
Supervisors approved an ordinance to ``prohibit county law
enforcement from assisting ICE in deporting migrants, giving
more protection than they have under California's existing
sanctuary laws.''\53\ Although the state sanctuary law includes
exceptions, ``the county ordinance adds another layer of
bureaucracy'' to create a ``super sanctuary status,'' according
to Republican County Supervisor Jim Desmond.\54\ In November
2024, the Los Angeles City Council hardened its sanctuary city
stance, unanimously passing an ordinance to prevent ``city
resources from being used to carry out federal immigration
enforcement.''\55\ In February 2025, the City of San Francisco
led a lawsuit against the Trump Administration ``over repeated
threats to penalize local governments for their laws protecting
[illegal aliens] from deportation.''\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\Jeff Arnold, San Diego County votes to become `super sanctuary'
for migrants, News Nation (Dec. 13, 2024, 4:54 AM), https://
www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/new-ordinance-san-diego-countys-
sanctuary-status/.
\54\Id.
\55\Jesus Jimenez, Los Angeles City Council Passes `Sanctuary'
Ordinance in Response to Trump, N.Y. Times (Nov. 19, 2024), https://
www.nytimes.com/2024/11/19/us/los-angeles-
sanctuary-trump.html.
\56\Dustin Gardiner & Blake Jones, San Francisco sues Trump,
alleging `authoritarian' threats against sanctuary cities, Politico
(Feb. 7, 2025, 3:46 PM), https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/07/san-
francisco-sues-trump-sanctuary-cities-00203155.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The state of California is equally devoted to obstructing
immigration enforcement. On February 7, 2025, California
Governor Gavin Newsom ``approved $50 million for legal defenses
against the Trump [A]dministration.''\57\ Half of the funding
is devoted to ``nonprofits providing legal aid to immigrants
facing deportation, eviction[,] and other threats from federal
action.''\58\ Although Governor Newsom claims that the state of
California cooperates with federal immigration officials,\59\
the state's refusal to honor ICE detainers ``resulted in the
release of 4,561 criminal illegal aliens'' from January 20,
2025, through early February 2026.\60\ In fact, the California
Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation admits that
California ``will not hold an individual past their scheduled
release date'' for ICE to take custody of the criminal
alien.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\Eric He, Newsom approves $50M in `Trump-proofing' funds for
California, Politico (Feb. 7, 2025, 7:30 PM), https://www.politico.com/
news/2025/02/07/newsom-trump-proofing-funds-00203203.
\58\Id.
\59\See, e.g., Press Release, Governor's Office demands Kristi Noem
learn to Google before sending stupid letters: California works with
ICE to deport criminals, Off. of Calif. Gov. (Feb. 6, 2026), https://
www.gov.ca.gov/2026/02/06/governors-office-demands-kristi-noem-learn-
to-google-before-sending-stupid-letters-california-works-with-ice-to-
deport-criminals/.
\60\Press Release, SANCTUARY CALAMITY: DHS and ICE urgently call on
Gavin Newsom and sanctuary California to not release 33,179 criminal
illegal aliens including murderers, sex offenders, and drug traffickers
from jails back into California communities, U.S. Immigr. & Customs
Enf't (Feb. 6, 2026), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/sanctuary-
calamity-dhs-and-ice-
urgently-call-gavin-newsom-and-sanctuary-california.
\61\Interaction with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
Calif. Dep't of Corrections and Rehabilitation, https://
www.cdcr.ca.gov/interaction-with-the-u-s-immigration-and-customs-
enforcement/ (last accessed Feb. 18, 2026).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
California's sanctuary policies have had deadly
consequences. In February 2022, David Mora Rojas shot and
killed his three daughters and another man during a supervised
visit with his children.\62\ Mora Rojas ``overstayed his visa
after entering California from his native Mexico'' in December
2018.\63\ Five days before Mora Rojas killed his children,
authorities arrested him for ``resisting arrest, battery on a
police officer[,] and driving under the influence.''\64\
Although ICE requested notification from local law enforcement
upon Mora Rojas's release from custody, the sheriff's office
blamed California law for the eventual murderer's ability to
``walk[] out of jail a free man.''\65\ The Biden-Harris
Administration's ICE ``did not take any additional steps to
deport him after he was released on bail.''\66\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\62\Topher Gauk-Roger, Officials identify father who killed 3 of
his kids and an adult before killing himself at a Sacramento church,
CNN (Mar. 1, 2022, 6:48 PM), https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/28/us/
sacramento-church-shooting/index.html.
\63\Associated Press, Father who killed 3 daughters in church
overstayed visa to stay in US. New details on `AR style' gun released,
ABC 10 (Mar. 4, 2022, 3:21 PM), https://www.abc10.com/article/news/
local/sacramento/gunman-who-killed-3-daughters-in-sacramento-church-
was-in-us-
illegally/103-c0b15e60-3802-4166-8b68-1f0fdf5ffa73.
\64\Id.
\65\Gilbert Cordova, Sheriff Scott Jones: California's sanctuary
state policies allowed deadly church shooting to happen, ABC 10 (Mar.
5, 2022, 12:35 PM), https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/
sacramento/sacramento-county-sheriff-scott-jones-church-shooting/103-
c4538114-6591-4eda-bba9-3d091d1e714c.
\66\Associated Press, Father who killed 3 daughters in church
overstayed visa to stay in US. New details on `AR style' gun released,
supra note 63.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Less than four years before Mora Rojas committed mass
murder, another illegal alien was released under California's
sanctuary laws just two days before he committed a ``reign of
terror'' in Tulare County, California.\67\ That illegal alien's
crime spree included one murder, several attempted murders,
multiple shootings, an armed robbery, and a high-speed
chase.\68\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\67\The Biden-Harris Border Crisis: Victim Perspectives: Hearing
Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 118th Cong. (Sept. 10, 2024)
(Statement of Sheriff Mike Boudreaux, Tulare County, Calif.), https://
judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/
files/evo-media-document/Boudreaux-Testimony.pdf.
\68\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
San Francisco's sanctuary policies prohibit law enforcement
from responding to federal immigration officers unless the
individual has been convicted of a violent felony in the last
seven years or convicted of a serious felony within the past
five years.\69\ One of the most notorious examples of San
Francisco's sanctuary policies is the 2015 death of Kate
Steinle.\70\ The 32-year-old woman was shot and killed by an
illegal alien that law enforcement officials in San Francisco
had released ``from custody instead of turning him over to
immigration authorities.''\71\ A jury eventually acquitted the
illegal alien after his defense attorney argued ``the shooting
was accidental and the bullet ricocheted off the ground and
traveled about 80 feet before hitting Steinle.''\72\ The
illegal alien later pleaded guilty to federal firearms charges
and ``admitted that on July 1, 2015, he was on San Francisco
Embarcadero Pier 14 and possessed a semi-automatic pistol
loaded with eight rounds.''\73\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\69\San Francisco, Cal., Admin. Code Sec. 12H (1989), amended by
Ord. 96-16, File No. 160022 (2016); see Sanctuary City Ordinance, City
of San Francisco, https://sf.gov/information/
sanctuary-city-ordinance.
\70\Holly Yan & Dan Simon, Undocumented immigrant acquitted in Kate
Steinle death, CNN (Dec. 1, 2017, 2:21 AM), https://www.cnn.com/2017/
11/30/us/kate-steinle-murder-trial-verdict.
\71\Id.
\72\Id.
\73\Press Release, Jose Inez Garcia-Zarate Pleads Guilty To Federal
Firearm Charges In Death Of Kate Steinle, U.S. Dep't of Justice (Mar.
14, 2022), https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/jose-inez-garcia-
zarate-pleads-guilty-federal-firearm-charges-death-kate-steinle.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Despite the deadly consequences of the city's sanctuary
policies, in 2020, San Francisco Sheriff Paul Miyamoto
reemphasized the city's long opposition to cooperation with
ICE.\74\ In fact, the city's sanctuary policies prevented
immigration officials from interviewing David DePape, an
illegal alien from Canada, following his attack on Paul Pelosi,
then-Speaker Nancy Pelosi's husband, at the couple's home in
October 2022.\75\ More recently, during the historic January
2025 fires that destroyed Los Angeles, residents apprehended an
illegal alien from Mexico after they ``saw him torching old
Christmas trees and debris on fire with what one resident
described as a `flamethrower' soon after [a] massive wildfire''
began in the area.\76\ The illegal alien had multiple
convictions, including for assault with a deadly weapon.\77\
Although ICE lodged a detainer against the alien after his most
recent arrest, the agency ``does not expect it to be honored
due to California's sanctuary state law.''\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\74\Josh Hopkins, San Francisco Sheriff Says his Department Won't
Cooperate With ICE, Daily Caller (Feb. 19, 2020, 5:37 PM), https://
dailycaller.com/2020/02/19/san-francisco-not-
cooperating-with-ice/.
\75\Adam Shaw, San Francisco `sanctuary' policies prevent ICE from
interviewing Pelosi attack suspect, Fox News (Nov. 10, 2022, 8:13 PM),
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/san-francisco-sanctuary-policies-
blocking-ice-interviewing-pelosi-attack-suspect.
\76\Jennie Taer & Patrick Reilly, Suspect arrested with
`flamethrower' near LA Fire is an illegal immigrant: sources, N.Y. Post
(Jan. 13, 2025, 7:05 AM), https://nypost.com/2025/01/13/us-news/
suspect-arrested-with-flamethrower-near-kenneth-fire-is-an-illegal-
immigrant-report/.
\77\Id.
\78\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado
Under Colorado law, ``[a] law enforcement officer shall not
arrest or detain an individual on the basis of a civil
immigration detainer request.''\79\ Although ICE already
requires that a detainer include either (1) a warrant for
arrest of an alien or (2) a warrant of removal or deportation
of an alien,\80\ Colorado law deems such warrants insufficient,
as ``[n]one of the civil immigration detainer requests received
from the federal immigration authorities are reviewed,
approved, or signed by a judge as required by Colorado
law.''\81\ Colorado's sanctuary law also prohibits probation
officers from providing criminal aliens' personal information
to federal immigration authorities.\82\ Moreover, if federal
immigration officials request an interview with a criminal
alien in state or local custody in Colorado, the law requires
that the alien be advised, ``in the [alien's] language of
choice,'' that ``[t]he interview is being sought by federal
immigration authorities,'' [t]he individual has the right to
decline the interview and remain silent,'' ``[t]he individual
has the right to speak to an attorney before submitting to the
interview,'' and ``[a]nything the individual says may be used
against him or her in subsequent proceedings, including in a
federal immigration court.''\83\ In 2025, Colorado Governor
Jared Polis signed into law additional sanctuary policies,\84\
including a prohibition on jails ``delaying a defendant's
release for the purpose of immigration enforcement.''\85\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\79\Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 24-76.6-102(2).
\80\U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf't, Issuance of Immigr. Detainers
by ICE Immigr. Officers, Policy No. 1007.2 (Mar. 24, 2017), https://
www.ice.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Document/2017/10074-2.pdf.
\81\Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 24-76.6-102(1)(b).
\82\Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 24-76.6-103(1).
\83\Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. Sec. 24-76.6-103(2).
\84\See Alayna Alvarez & John Frank, Legal pressure mounts against
Gov. Polis over ICE data disclosure, Axios (June 9, 2025), https://
www.axios.com/local/denver/2025/06/09/colorado-jared-polis-ice-lawsuit;
Savana Kascak, Gov. Polis signs expanded protections for illegal
immigrants in Colorado, Complete Colorado (June 9, 2025), https://
completecolorado.com/2025/06/09/gov-polis-signs-expanded-protections-
illegal-immigration/.
\85\Karin Brulliard, New Colorado law enhances state protections
for at-risk immigrants, Wash. Post (May 23, 2025), https://
www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2025/05/23/colorado-immigration-laws-
sanctuary-polis/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Far-left Democrat officials in Colorado misleadingly claim
that state and local law enforcement cooperate with ICE;
however, any such ``cooperation'' is limited to circumstances
in which a warrant is ``issued by a federal judge or
magistrate,'' meaning that the overwhelming majority of
immigration detainers are insufficient.\86\ In one instance
from last year, Denver authorities released Abraham Smith
Gonzalez, a criminal alien and suspected Tren de Aragua gang
member, instead of honoring an ICE detainer.\87\ As a result,
when ICE officers attempted to arrest the alien outside a
Denver jail, the Venezuelan national assaulted one officer.\88\
The alien had been in Denver Sheriff's Department custody for
nearly a year after he was charged with aggravated assault,
motor vehicle theft, felony menacing, and other crimes.\89\ If
state law allowed law enforcement to honor immigration
detainers, ICE officers could have taken custody of the alleged
dangerous gang member in a controlled environment instead of
being forced to confront him at-large in the community.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\86\See A Hearing with Sanctuary Mayors: Hearing Before the H.
Comm. on Oversight
and Government Reform, 118th Cong. (Mar. 5, 2025) (Statement of Mike
Johnston, Mayor, Denver, Colo.), https://oversight.house.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2025/03/Johnston-Denver-Written-
Testimony.pdf.
\87\Peter Pinedo, `Sanctuary' city mayor confronted after gang
member allegedly assaults federal officers, FOX News (Mar. 5, 2025,
3:03 PM), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sanctuary-city-mayor-
confronted-allowing-gang-member-assault-federal-officers; Info.
provided to H. Comm. on the Judiciary by Immigr. and Customs Enf't
(Mar. 4, 2025) (on file with Comm.).
\88\Id.
\89\Info. provided to H. Comm. on the Judiciary by Immigr. and
Customs Enf't (Mar. 4, 2025) (on file with Comm.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Colorado also has targeted local law enforcement officers
who have cooperated with federal immigration officials. In July
2025, Colorado's attorney general sued a county sheriff's
deputy for ``his cooperation with federal immigration agents on
a drug task force.''\90\ The lawsuit came after ``two deputies
used a Signal chat to offer information to federal agents in an
effort to assist immigration enforcement.''\91\ In addition to
the lawsuit, two deputies and two supervisors were disciplined,
with one supervisor being ``suspended without pay for two
days,'' ``another receiving a letter of reprimand,'' and ``[a]
third supervisor receiv[ing] counseling.''\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\90\Landon Mion, Colorado deputies violated new state law when
sharing information with federal immigration agents, Fox News (Aug. 1,
2025, 6:01 AM), https://www.foxnews.com/us/
colorado-deputies-violated-new-state-law-when-sharing-information-
federal-immigration-agents.
\91\Id.
\92\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As Denver billed itself as a sanctuary for criminals, the
city budget suffered. One 2024 study estimated that the city
spent $356 million on illegal aliens since the Biden-Harris
border crisis began.\93\ The city reportedly spent eight
percent ``of its 2025 budget caring for the roughly 45,000
migrants who have arrived since 2022.''\94\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\93\Jared Downing, Sanctuary city Denver has spent almost $8,000
for each of the 45,000 migrants that have come to the city--and now the
mayor says he'll risk jail to stop them being deported, N.Y. Post (Dec.
1, 2024), https://nypost.com/2024/12/01/us-news/denver-spent-356-
million-taxpayers-money-on-illegal-migrants/.
\94\Id.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Georgia
Although Georgia state law prohibits sanctuary
jurisdictions,\95\ sanctuary jurisdictions remain in the state,
including in the City of Atlanta, Athens-Clarke County,
Columbia County, DeKalb County, and Douglas County.\96\ The
Clarke County Sheriff's Office, which includes Athens, claims
it cooperates with ICE if the agency ``is able to pick up an
undocumented person before the time they would have been able
to bond out or otherwise be lawfully released.''\97\ The
sheriff's office refuses to honor detainers if it would require
the office to detain a criminal alien beyond the time the alien
would otherwise be released.\98\ The Clarke County Sheriff
described such action as a ``warrantless arrest'' in the
absence of ``a warrant or court order signed by a judge.''\99\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\95\See Ga. Code Ann. Sec. 36-80-23.
\96\See Vaughan, supra note 7.
\97\FOX 5 Atlanta Digital Team, Clarke County sheriff clarifies
policy on handling undocumented arrestees/inmates.
\98\Id.
\99\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last year, Georgia Republicans advanced legislation to
further strengthen the state's anti-sanctuary jurisdiction
laws. In February 2025, the Georgia Senate passed a bill ``that
would allow local government employees and officials in so-
called sanctuary cities to be held civilly liable for crimes
committed by immigrants without permanent legal status.''\100\
The bill's proponents, including Lieutenant Governor Burt
Jones, described the bill as eliminating sovereign immunity for
local officials who violate the state's anti-sanctuary
laws.\101\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\100\Stanley Dunlap, Georgia Senate passes bill to take lawsuit
immunity away from so-called sanctuary cities, Georgia Recorder (Feb.
13, 2025, 6:29 PM), https://georgiarecorder.com/2025/02/13/georgia-
senate-passes-bill-to-take-lawsuit-immunity-away-from-so-called-
sanctuary-cities/.
\101\Press Release, Lt. Gov. of Georgia, Lt. Governor Jones
Applauds Priority Senate Passage: Immigr. Enf't (Feb. 13, 2025),
https://ltgov.georgia.gov/press-releases/2025-02-13/lt-governor-jones-
applauds-priority-senate-passage-immigration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Illinois
Illinois does not cooperate with federal immigration
enforcement. In August 2017, then-Governor Bruce Rauner signed
Illinois's version of the Trust Act, which restricted
cooperation between local law enforcement agencies and federal
immigration officials and undermined federal detainer
requests.\102\ On August 2, 2021, Illinois Governor JB Pritzker
signed into law legislation that further undermined immigration
enforcement by prohibiting local governments from signing
contracts with ICE and forbidding ``officials from inquiring
about the citizenship or immigration status of an individual in
custody unless they're presented with a federal criminal
warrant, or otherwise required by federal law.''\103\ Chicago,
meanwhile, has promoted sanctuary policies for four decades,
establishing itself as a magnet for illegal aliens.\104\ Since
August 2022, more than 50,000 migrants have moved to
Chicago,\105\ with the city ``pa[ying] out $638.7 million in
vendor contracts'' for illegal aliens during that time.\106\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\102\Teresa Mathew, Illinois Targets Trump's Immigration Agenda,
Bloomberg (Aug. 24, 2017, 3:54 PM), FOX 5 Atlanta (Mar. 7, 2024, 10:11
AM), https://www.fox5atlanta.com/news/clarke-county-sheriff-clarifies-
policy-on-handling-undocumented-arrestees-inmates.
\103\See Press Release, State of Illinois, Gov. Pritzker Signs
Legislation Further Establishing Illinois as the Most Welcoming State
in the Nation (Aug. 2, 2021), https://www.illinois.gov/news/press-
release.23653.html (explaining Ill. H.B. 121, S.B. 667, S.B. 1596, and
S.B. 2665).
\104\See Kori Rumore, Chicago's more than 40-year history as a
sanctuary city, Chicago Tribune (Mar. 5, 2025, 2:16 PM), https://
www.chicagotribune.com/2025/03/05/timeline-chicagos-more-than-40-year-
history-as-a-sanctuary-city/.
\105\Ira Mehlman, Chicagoans Revolt Over City Spending on Illegal
Migrants, FAIR (Dec. 23, 2024), https://www.fairus.org/news/state-and-
local/chicagoans-revolt-over-city-spending-illegal-migrants.
\106\Barb Markoff et al., Chicago Mayor Johnson defends spending on
migrant crisis during Capitol Hill hearings, ABC 7 (Mar. 5, 2025),
https://abc7chicago.com/post/chicago-mayor-
brandon-johnson-defends-spending-migrant-crisis-during-sanctuary-city-
hearings-washington-dc/15981771/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago's refusal to cooperate with federal immigration
officials terrorizes communities, incentivizes crime, and
undermines the rule of law. In 2019, for example, the Chicago
Police Department refused to honor an ICE detainer for a
Mexican national who had been arrested for theft.\107\ After
his release from custody, the illegal alien allegedly lured a
3-year-old girl into a McDonald's bathroom and sexually
assaulted her.\108\ Had Chicago authorities cooperated with
federal officials, the man--a convicted aggravated felon who
previously had been deported--could have been in ICE custody
and removed to Mexico.\109\ Despite this avoidable tragedy, the
Chicago Police Department defended its lack of cooperation with
ICE, proclaiming that ``[t]he Chicago Police Department remains
committed to protecting all Chicago residents regardless of
their immigration status.''\110\ According to ICE, Cook County,
Illinois, law enforcement ``released 1,070 criminal aliens and
immigration violators in Fiscal Year 2019, despite requests by
[ICE] to notify the agency before their release from local
custody.''\111\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\107\Press Release, U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf't, Man arrested
for sexually assaulting toddler at fast food restaurant should have
been turned over to ICE in 2019 (Feb. 27, 2020), https://www.ice.gov/
news/releases/man-arrested-sexually-assaulting-toddler-fast-food-
restaurant-should-have-been-turned.
\108\Id.; see Lee Brown, Man released under `sanctuary city' rules
sexually assaults 3-year-old: ICE, N.Y. Post (Mar. 2, 2020, 2:55 PM),
https://nypost.com/2020/03/02/man-released-under-
sanctuary-city-rules-sexually-assaults-3-year-old-ice/.
\109\Id.
\110\Id.
\111\See Press Release, U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf't, Cook County
declines more than 1,000 ICE detainers in FY19 (Jan. 10, 2020), https:/
/www.ice.gov/news/releases/cook-county-declined-more-1000-ice-
detainers-fy19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Massachusetts
Jurisdictions in Massachusetts routinely shield criminal
aliens from arrest by ICE. In less than a week in March 2025,
ICE arrested 370 illegal aliens in the Boston area.\112\ The
illegal aliens included a Chilean national with a child sex
crime conviction, a convicted felon and cocaine trafficker, and
an 18th Street Gang member, all of whom were released into
Massachusetts communities before ICE could take them into
custody.\113\ Nonetheless, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu has
defended the city's sanctuary status, stating that any concerns
about the danger of sanctuary cities are part of ``a false
narrative.''\114\ In December 2024, the ``Boston City Council
voted unanimously to retain its status as a sanctuary
city.''\115\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\112\Michael Dorgan & Bill Melugin, ICE in Boston nabs previously
deported Dominican fentanyl trafficker, child rape convict, murderers,
FOX News (Mar. 26, 2025, 8:50 AM), https://www.foxnews.com/us/ice-
boston-nabs-previously-deported-dominican-fentanyl-trafficker-child-
rape-convict-murderers.
\113\Id.
\114\Melina Khan, Michelle Wu talks sanctuary cities, Boston
culture, her career on `The Daily Show', Herald News (Mar. 26, 2025,
11:04 AM), https://www.heraldnews.com/story/news/
politics/2025/03/26/michelle-wu-sanctuary-cities-on-the-daily-show/
82667818007/.
\115\Haley Strack, Boston City Council Votes Unanimously to Retain
Sanctuary Status, `Braces' for Trump's Immigration Policies, National
Review (Dec. 5, 2024, 3:27 PM), https://www.nationalreview.com/news/
boston-city-council-votes-unanimously-to-retain-sanctuary-status-
braces-for-trumps-immigration-policies/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
New York
New York continues its sanctuary policies, despite rampant
crime, including crimes that would have been prevented by
cooperating with ICE. In 2020, ICE immigration enforcement
activity led to 54 arrests of aliens with criminal charges such
as sexual assault against a child, lewd and lascivious acts
upon a child, robbery, and grand larceny.\116\ Of the 54 aliens
arrested, more than 30 had been released from local law
enforcement custody despite active ICE detainers.\117\ These
releases have tragic consequences. In 2020, an illegal alien
allegedly raped and murdered a 92-year-old woman in Queens, New
York.\118\ Despite ICE requesting that local law enforcement
hand him over to federal authorities after an arrest just two
months earlier, New York City authorities released him.\119\
The woman's granddaughter, Daria Ortiz, explained how her
grandmother's murder could have been prevented, noting that
``[t]he tragedy in all of this is the fact that this could have
been avoided, had there been no sanctuary law.''\120\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\116\Press Release, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, New
York's sanctuary city
policy leads to increased ICE activity, dozens of arrests throughout
metropolitan area (Oct. 20, 2020), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/
new-yorks-sanctuary-city-policy-leads-increased-ice-
activity-dozens-arrests.
\117\Id.; see Press Release, U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf't, ICE
arrests 225 during Operation Keep Safe in New York (Apr. 17, 2018),
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-arrests-225-during-operation-
keep-safe-new-york (highlighting criminal aliens arrested during a 2018
ICE enforcement action, including 60 aliens previously released by
local law enforcement despite active ICE detainers).
\118\See Annie Correal, Man Accused of Murdering Woman, 92, Should
Have Been Deported, ICE Says, N.Y. Times (Jan. 14, 2020), https://
www.nytimes.com/2020/01/14/nyregion/92-year-old-woman-queens-
murder.html; see also Adam Shaw, DHS boss blasts NYC for springing
illegal immigrant now held on murder charge: `Preventable tragedy', FOX
News (Jan. 17, 2020, 9:57 AM), https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dhs-
illegal-immigrant-nyc-murder.
\119\Id.
\120\Shaw, supra note 118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The same month, ICE arrested an illegal alien from Ecuador
who, despite having been arrested for sexually assaulting a
child, had been released by the New York Police Department
instead of transferred to ICE.\121\ Nonetheless, then-Mayor
Bill de Blasio claimed that refusing ICE detainers made the
city safer.\122\ In January 2023, a 27-year-old illegal alien
from Mexico was sentenced to multiple life sentences for
murdering three people.\123\ The man, who was allowed to remain
in the United States through Deferred Action for Childhood
Arrivals, was arrested for domestic violence in New Jersey in
2017.\124\ Local law enforcement ignored an ICE detainer and
released him, where, a year later, he murdered his girlfriend
and a married couple.\125\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\121\Press Release, U.S. Immigr. and Customs Enf't, ICE arrests
Ecuadorian man accused of raping a minor during enforcement efforts in
New York (Jan. 31, 2020), https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-
arrests-ecuadorian-man-accused-raping-minor-during-enforcement-efforts-
new-york.
\122\Shaw, supra note 118.
\123\John Binder, DACA Illegal Alien, Freed by Sanctuary County,
Sentenced to Life in Prison for Triple Murder, Breitbart (Jan. 29,
2023), https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2023/01/29/daca-illegal-
alien-freed-sanctuary-county-sentenced-life-prison-triple-murder/.
\124\Id.
\125\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to suffering from the crime and violence
perpetuated by New York's sanctuary policies, residents now
bear the financial burdens of the influx of the Biden-Harris
Administration's illegal aliens. According to former New York
City Mayor Eric Adams, by the end of fiscal year 2025, the city
was predicted to have spent more than $12 billion on illegal
aliens since 2022.\126\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\126\Updating the Costs of NYC's Asylum Seeker Crisis, NYC.gov,
https://www.nyc.gov/content/getstuffdone/pages/asylum-seeker-update.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Washington State
Under Washington's sanctuary laws, state and local law
enforcement agencies are prohibited from asking about a
person's immigration status, from providing personal
information about criminal aliens to federal immigration
officials, and from continuing to detain criminal aliens so
that federal officials are able to take the aliens into
custody.\127\ Washington law also requires that law enforcement
provide criminal aliens with numerous warnings about
cooperating with immigration officials and forbids
jurisdictions from entering into immigration enforcement
cooperation agreements with the federal government.\128\ As a
result, there appears to be ``little or no interaction''
between Washington law enforcement entities and federal
immigration authorities.\129\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\127\Wash. Rev. Code Ann. Sec. 10.93.160.
\128\Id.
\129\Lauren Girgis, Most WA law enforcement agencies say they won't
work with ICE, Seattle Times (Feb. 13, 2025, 6:00 AM), https://
www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/law-justice/most-wa-law-enforcement-
agencies-say-they-wont-work-with-ice/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On March 9, 2025, Washington Attorney General Nick Brown
filed a lawsuit against the Adams County Sheriff's Office for
its cooperation with federal immigration officials to ensure
dangerous criminal aliens were removed from Washington
communities.\130\ In the complaint, the Attorney General's
office alleged violations such as the sheriff's office
``[p]roviding information in response to a notification request
from federal immigration authorities for the purpose of civil
immigration enforcement,'' ``[g]iving federal immigration
authorities access to individuals in custody,'' and briefly
detaining criminal aliens so that ICE could arrest them.\131\
Instead of applauding this cooperation with federal officials--
and compliance with federal law--to remove criminal aliens from
local communities, the state of Washington chose to harass a
law enforcement office devoted to protecting its community. On
March 31, 2025, Chairman Jordan, Subcommittee Chairman
McClintock, and Representative Baumgartner launched an
investigation into Attorney General Nick Brown's targeting of
anti-sanctuary jurisdictions.\132\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\130\See Complaint for Injunctive and Declaratory Relief, State of
Washington v. Adams County Sheriff's Off., Spokane County Superior
Court (Mar. 9, 2025), available at https://agportal- s3bucket.s3.us-
west-2.amazonaws.com/2025.03.09%20Adams%20County%20Complaint.pdf?Ver
sionId=NXHzszDyU3ZJcSN9f7v6602uONrtAie7.
\131\Id. at 23.
\132\Letter from Jim Jordan, Chairman, H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
to Nick Brown, Washington Att'y Gen. (Mar. 31, 2025).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sanctuary jurisdictions and federal funding
Although sanctuary jurisdictions refuse to comply with
federal law that prohibits restrictions on local and state
entities' cooperation with immigration authorities, many of
those same jurisdictions willingly accept federal law
enforcement grant money. For example, in fiscal year 2015, just
two years after California enacted its expansive sanctuary
state law, the Justice Department awarded California $28.4
million in grant funding under the Byrne JAG Program, a program
that awards grants to jurisdictions for law enforcement-related
functions.\133\ California received $30.5 million in grant
funding the next fiscal year (fiscal year 2016), with New York
receiving $15.6 million and Illinois receiving $10.4
million.\134\ In 2023, California received $35.7 million in JAG
funding, with Los Angeles receiving $2.4 million.\135\ The same
year, the state of New York received $16.4 million in JAG
funding, $4.7 million of which went to New York City.\136\
Chicago, meanwhile, received $2.4 million in JAG funding in
2023.\137\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\133\See Alexia D. Cooper & Shelley S. Hyland, Justice Assistance
Grant (JAG) Program, 2015, at 1, U.S. Dep't of Justice (2015), https://
bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/jagp15.pdf.
\134\See Alexia D. Cooper, Justice Assistance Grant Program, 2016,
at 1, U.S. Dep't of Justice (2016), https://bjs.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/
xyckuh236/files/media/document/jagp16.pdf.
\135\Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, 2023, Bureau of
Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/
publications/justice-assistance-grant-jag-program-2023 (last accessed
Jan. 20, 2026).
\136\Id.
\137\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP),
another Justice Department grant program, ``reimburses states
and localities for a portion of state and local incarceration
costs for criminal alien populations that meet the criteria for
reimbursement.''\138\ SCAAP reimbursement, however, is only
available for aliens who ``(1) had at least one felony or two
misdemeanor convictions for violations of state or local law
and (2) were incarcerated for at least [four] consecutive days
during the reporting period.''\139\ Historically, jurisdictions
have been eligible to receive SCAAP funding even if they were a
sanctuary jurisdiction. The OBBBA provides funding for SCAAP--
but only for non-sanctuary jurisdictions.\140\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\138\U.S. Gov't Accountability Off., GAO-18-433, Criminal Alien
Statistics: Information on Incarcerations, Arrests, Convictions, Costs,
and Removals 2 (July 2018), https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-433.pdf.
\139\Id. at 10.
\140\One Big Beautiful Bill Act, 139 Stat. 72, Pub. L. No. 119-21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In May 2016, the DOJ Office of the Inspector General (OIG)
issued a memorandum to the Assistant Attorney General for
Justice Programs (OJP) in response to a request to investigate
allegations that over 140 state and local jurisdictions
receiving Department grant funds may have violated federal
law.\141\ Specifically, the DOJ OIG was asked to ``investigate
the allegations that the [140] jurisdictions . . . who are
recipients of funding from the Department of Justice, are in
violation'' of IIRIRA.\142\ The DOJ OIG identified a sample of
10 state and local jurisdictions for further review:
Connecticut; California; Chicago, Illinois; Clark County,
Nevada; Cook County, Illinois; Miami-Dade County, Florida;
Milwaukee County, Wisconsin; Orleans Parish, Louisiana; New
York, New York; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.\143\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\141\See Letter from Michael E. Horowitz, Inspector Gen., Off. of
the Inspector Gen., to Karol Mason, Assistant Att'y Gen., U.S. Dep't of
Justice (May 31, 2016), https://oig.justice.gov/reports/2016/1607.pdf.
\142\Id.
\143\Id. at 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DOJ OIG found that ``each of the 10 jurisdictions had
laws or policies directly related to how those jurisdictions
could respond to ICE detainers, and each limited in some way
the authority of the jurisdiction to take action with regard to
ICE detainers.''\144\ Additionally, the DOJ OIG found that
``the laws and policies in several of the 10 jurisdictions go
beyond regulating responses to ICE detainers and also address,
in some way, the sharing of information with federal
immigration authorities.''\145\ By all appearances, many of
these policies were designed to give the impression such
jurisdictions were complying with federal law by employing,
what the DOJ OIG described as, meaningless ``savings clause''
language.\146\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\144\Id. at 4.
\145\Id. at 5.
\146\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to written sanctuary policies, the DOJ OIG
found that IIRIRA (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373) also applied to the
actions of officials who prohibit or restrict employees from
providing information to ICE.\147\ The DOJ OIG stated that,
``[a] reasonable reading of Section 1373, based on its `in any
way restrict' language, would be that it applies not only to
the situation where a local law or policy specifically
prohibits or restricts an employee from providing citizenship
or immigration status information to ICE but also where the
actions of local officials result in prohibitions or
restrictions on employees providing such information to
ICE.''\148\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\147\Id. at 7 n.9.
\148\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Attorney General Pam Bondi reinforced that interpretation
in a February 2025 memorandum announcing that the Department
would ``require any jurisdiction that applies for certain
Department grants to be compliant with 8 U.S.C. Sec.
1373(a).''\149\ The Attorney General emphasized that
``[s]anctuary jurisdictions should not receive access to
federal grants administered by the Department of Justice'' and
noted that the Department would ``exercise its own authority to
impose any conditions of funding that do not violate appliable
constitutional or statutory limitations.''\150\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\149\Memorandum from Att'y Gen. to All Dep't Employees, ``Sanctuary
Jurisdiction Directives'' (Feb. 5, 2025), available at https://
www.sfcityattorney.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/February-5-memo.pdf.
\150\Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the Trump Administration's emphasis on ensuring
grant funding does not benefit sanctuary jurisdictions that
flout federal law, the Justice Department has already denied
crime victim assistance funding to ``[a]ny program or activity
that, directly or indirectly, violates (or promotes or
facilitates the violation of) federal immigration law
(including 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1373) or impedes or hinders the
enforcement of federal immigration law.''\151\ On August 19,
2025, 20 states and the District of Columbia filed a lawsuit
against the Justice Department for conditioning the receipt of
the federal grant funding to a jurisdiction's compliance with
federal law.\152\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\151\OVC FY25 Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Victim Assistance Formula
Grant, U.S. Dep't of Justice, at 9, https://www.ojp.gov/funding/docs/
ovc-2025-172428.pdf.
\152\Joe Walsh, 20 states and D.C. sue Trump administration for
tying billions in crime victim grants to immigration enforcement, CBS
News (Aug. 19, 2025, 11:33 AM), https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-doj-
crime-victims-sanctuary-cities-lawsuit/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026
The Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026 prohibits
state and local governments, officials, or other personnel from
restricting cooperation with federal law enforcement, including
immigration officials, for the enforcement of immigration law.
Specifically, the bill prohibits state and local governments
from prohibiting or restricting (1) the maintenance of and
inquiries into individuals' citizenship or immigration status,
inadmissibility or deportability, or custody status; (2)
notification to the federal government about individuals
encountered by state or local law enforcement officials; and
(3) compliance with information requests for such individuals.
It also explicitly preempts state and local laws that directly
or indirectly restrict or prohibit such cooperation and
information sharing with federal officials and provides
immunity for state and local jurisdictions that comply with
such requirements.
The Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026 also provides
long-awaited recourse to victims of sanctuary jurisdictions'
reckless policies. The bill creates a private right of action
for any individual (or a spouse, parent, or child of that
individual if the individual is deceased) who is the victim of
a murder, rape, or other felony, against a state or local
government or official if the state or local government
released the criminal alien perpetrator due to sanctuary
policies.
The bill additionally strengthens ICE's ability to use
detainers to ensure dangerous criminal aliens are not released
into American communities. The bill clarifies the DHS authority
to issue detainers for aliens if the DHS Secretary has probable
cause to believe that the alien is inadmissible or deportable
and statutorily defines probable cause to match ICE's
longstanding policy. To ensure widespread compliance with
detainers, the Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026
provides immunity to state and local governments (and their
officials) that comply with detainers. The bill also allows DHS
to decline the transfer of aliens from DHS custody to state or
local custody if the state refuses to cooperate with federal
officials. In doing so, the bill guarantees that sanctuary
jurisdictions cannot simply release criminal aliens into
American communities.
The Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026 ends the
federal funding windfall to sanctuary jurisdictions that defy
federal law and endanger American communities. The bill makes
states and localities ineligible to receive certain federal
grant programs, including COPS funding, Byrne JAG funding, and
other immigration-related Justice Department and DHS grants, if
the states and localities do not cooperate with federal
officials or comply with valid detainers. Jurisdictions,
including localities in sanctuary states, that do not restrict
or prohibit cooperation with federal immigration officials
would remain eligible for federal grant funding. The funding
not allocated to sanctuary jurisdictions can be reallocated to
jurisdictions that cooperate with federal officials.
The Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026 comports with
Supreme Court precedent related to conditions on federal
funding. The Supreme Court has made clear that, incident to its
Constitutional spending power, Congress may attach conditions
on the receipt of federal funds, and has repeatedly employed
the power ``to further broad policy objectives by conditioning
receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with
federal statutory and administrative directives.''\153\ Even
the far-left U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has
acknowledged the congressional authority to condition federal
funds on compliance with federal immigration law.\154\ The
Supreme Court has repeatedly held that for Congress to
condition funds, the funds must be for ``the general welfare,''
Congress must condition the funds unambiguously, and any
conditions must be related to the federal interest in the
relevant projects or programs.\155\ The Shut Down Sanctuary
Policies Act of 2026 satisfies these requirements. The bill's
language is unequivocal and unambiguous: if a jurisdiction
restricts or prohibits cooperation with federal law
enforcement, that jurisdiction is ineligible for certain
federal grant funds; the conditions are also related to the
funds themselves, because the grants revolve around law
enforcement and immigration; and, lastly, sanctuary policies
undermine law enforcement efforts and endanger public safety.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\153\South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206 (1987) (internal
quotation marks omitted).
\154\See City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Trump, 897 F.3d 1225,
1235 (9th Cir. 2018).
\155\Dole, 483 U.S. at 207.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The bill's careful structure also distinguishes it from
laws the Supreme Court has held are unconstitutional
commandeering. H.R. 7640 simply makes jurisdictions ineligible
for certain grant funding if the jurisdictions restrict or
prohibit the federal government from enforcing federal
immigration law. Unlike sanctuary jurisdictions, which seek to
commandeer federal law by undermining the federal government's
immigration enforcement actions, the bill does not command law
enforcement officers to do anything or take part in any federal
activity, such as conducting background checks as in Printz v.
United States;\156\ does not ``compel[] [jurisdictions] to
enact and enforce a federal regulatory program,'' such as
taking title of nuclear waste as in New York v. United
States;\157\ and does not ``dictate[] what a state legislature
may and may not do,'' such as prohibiting state authorization
of sports gambling as in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic
Association.\158\ Cooperation with federal immigration
authorities would remain voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\156\Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).
\157\New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 161, 176 (1992).
\158\Murphy v. Nat'l Collegiate Athletic Ass'n, 584 U.S. 453, 474
(2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hearings
For the purposes of clause 3(c)(6)(A) of House rule XIII,
the following hearing was used to develop H.R. 7640:
``Sanctuary Jurisdictions: Magnet for Migrants, Cover for
Criminals,'' a hearing held on April 9, 2025, before the
Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and
Enforcement of the Committee on the Judiciary. The Subcommittee
heard testimony from the following witnesses:
Dale Wagner, Sheriff, Adams County,
Washington;
Danielle Carter-Walters, Chicago Resident;
Vice President, Chicago Flips Red;
RJ Hauman, President, National Immigration
Center for Enforcement (NICE); and
Neill Franklin, Major (Ret)., Baltimore and
Maryland Police Departments; Executive Director, Law
Enforcement Action Partnership.
The hearing addressed how sanctuary policies endanger American
communities, deplete state and local resources, shield criminal
aliens from accountability, and exemplify Democrats' open-
borders, no-consequences immigration policies.
Committee Consideration
On March 5, 2026, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill, H.R. 7640, favorably reported with an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, by a roll call vote of
22-11, a quorum being present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of House rule XIII, the
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 7640:
1. Vote on Amendment #1 to the H.R. 7640 ANS, offered by
Ms. McBath--failed 9 ayes to 17 nays.
2. Vote on Amendment #2 to the H.R. 7640 ANS, offered by
Mr. Raskin--failed 9 ayes to 16 nays.
3. Vote on Amendment #3 to the H.R. 7640 ANS, offered by
Ms. Jayapal--failed 10 ayes to 13 nays.
4. Vote on Amendment #4 to the H.R. 7640 ANS, offered by
Ms. Scanlon--failed 11 ayes to 14 nays.
5. Vote on Amendment #5 to the H.R. 7640 ANS, offered by
Ms. Kamlager-Dove--failed 10 ayes to 15 nays.
6. Vote on favorably reporting H.R. 7640, as amended--
passed 22 ayes to 11 nays.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of House rule XIII, the
Committee advises that the findings and recommendations of the
Committee, based on oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1)
of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives, are
incorporated in the descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(c)(2) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives and section
308(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect
to the requirements of clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives and section 402 of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee has requested
but not received a cost estimate for this bill from the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office. The Committee has
requested but not received from the Director of the
Congressional Budget Office a statement as to whether this bill
contains any new budget authority, spending authority, credit
authority, or an increase or decrease in revenues or tax
expenditures. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such
estimate and statement to be printed in the Congressional
Record upon its receipt by the Committee.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirement of clause 3(c)(3) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, a cost
estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant
to section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 was not
made available to the Committee in time for the filing of this
report. The Chairman of the Committee shall cause such estimate
to be printed in the Congressional Record upon its receipt by
the Committee.
Committee Estimate of Budgetary Effects
With respect to the requirements of clause 3(d)(1) of rule
XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared by the
Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to section
402 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Duplication of Federal Programs
Pursuant to clause 3(c)(5) of House rule XIII, no provision
of H.R. 7640 establishes or reauthorizes a program of the
federal government known to be duplicative of another federal
program.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
House rule XIII, H.R. 7640 would prohibit state and local
governments, officials, or other personnel from restricting
cooperation with federal law enforcement for the enforcement of
immigration law, and would establish a private right of action
for any individual or next of kin of such individual who is the
victim of a murder, rape, or other felony committed by a
criminal alien, against a state or local government official,
released due to sanctuary policies.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of House rule XXI, H.R. 7640
does not contain any congressional earmarks, limited tax
benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clauses
9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of House Rule XXI.
Federal Mandates Statement
An estimate of federal mandates prepared by the Director of
the Congressional Budget office pursuant to section 423 of the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act was not made available to the
Committee in time for the filing of this report. The Chairman
of the Committee shall cause such estimate to be printed in the
Congressional Record upon its receipt by the Committee.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Applicability to Legislative Branch
The Committee finds that the legislation does not relate to
the terms and conditions of employment or access to public
services or accommodations within the meaning of section
102(b)(3) of the Congressional Accountability Act (Pub. L. 104-
1).
Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short Title. The ``Shut Down Sanctuary Policies
Act of 2026.''
Section 2. State and Local Cooperation with Enforcement of
Immigration Law. This section:
Prohibits state and local governments,
officials, or other personnel from restricting
cooperation with federal law enforcement, including
immigration officials, for the enforcement of the
immigration laws;
Prohibits state and local governments,
officials, or other personnel from prohibiting or
restricting (1) the maintenance of and inquiries into
individuals' citizenship or immigration status,
inadmissibility or deportability, or custody status;
(2) notification to the federal government about
individuals encountered by state or local law
enforcement officials; and (3) compliance with
information requests for such individuals;
Explicitly preempts state and local laws
that directly or indirectly restrict or prohibit such
cooperation and information sharing with federal
officials;
Allows a civil action or criminal
prosecution commenced in state court to be removed to
federal district court if the suit arises from a
jurisdiction's cooperation with federal immigration
officials;
Allows a state or local jurisdiction acting
in compliance with federal immigration law to be
considered to have acted under color of federal
authority for purposes of determining the
jurisdiction's liability and mandates that such
jurisdictions be held harmless for their compliance in
any suit seeking any punitive, compensatory, or other
monetary damages;
Requires that the federal government be
substituted as a defendant in any civil action arising
out of a jurisdiction's compliance with federal
immigration law;
Makes states and localities ineligible to
receive certain federal grant programs, including COPS
funding, Byrne JAG funding, and other Justice
Department and DHS grants, if the states and localities
do not cooperate with federal officials or comply with
valid detainers;
Allows DHS to decline the transfer of aliens
from DHS custody to state or local custody if the state
refuses to cooperate with federal officials and
prohibits the transfer of aliens with final orders of
removal to jurisdictions that do not cooperate with
federal immigration officials;
Requires the DHS Secretary to annually
determine the jurisdictions that do not cooperate with
federal immigration officials and report such
determinations to the House and Senate Committees on
the Judiciary; and
Reallocates any funds that are not allocated
to sanctuary jurisdictions to jurisdictions that comply
with federal immigration law.
Section 3. Clarifying the Authority of ICE Detainers. This
section:
Clarifies DHS authority to issue detainers
for aliens if the DHS Secretary has probable cause to
believe that the alien is inadmissible or deportable
and defines probable cause;
Allows a civil action or criminal
prosecution commenced in state court to be removed to
federal district court if the suit arises from a
jurisdiction's compliance with ICE detainers;
Provides immunity to state and local
governments (and their officials) that comply with
detainers and mandates that the federal government be
substituted as a defendant in any civil action arising
out of a jurisdiction's compliance with a detainer;
Explicitly preempts state and local laws
that directly or indirectly restrict or prohibit
detainer compliance; and
Creates a private right of action for any
individual (or a spouse, parent, or child of that
individual if the individual is deceased) who is the
victim of a murder, rape, or other felony, against a
state or local government or official if the state or
local government released the criminal alien
perpetrator due to sanctuary policies.
Section 4. Construction; Severability. This section deems
the bill's provisions severable if another provision is held
invalid or unenforceable.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, and existing law in which no
change is proposed is shown in roman):
ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION REFORM AND IMMIGRANT RESPONSIBILITY
ACT OF 1996
SEC. 1. SHORT TITLE OF DIVISION; AMENDMENTS TO IMMIGRATION AND
NATIONALITY ACT; APPLICATION OF DEFINITIONS OF SUCH
ACT; TABLE OF CONTENTS OF DIVISION; SEVERABILITY.
(a) Short Title.--This division may be cited as the ``Illegal
Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996''.
* * * * * * *
(d) Table of Contents of Division.--The table of contents of
this division is as follows:
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI-MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
* * * * * * *
Subtitle D-Other Provisions
* * * * * * *
[Sec. 642. Communication between government agencies and the Immigration
and Naturalization Service.]
Sec. 642. State and local government cooperation with immigration
enforcement.
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
Subtitle D--Other Provisions
* * * * * * *
SEC. 642. [COMMUNICATION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND THE
IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE] STATE AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COOPERATION WITH IMMIGRATION
ENFORCEMENT.
[(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local
government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way
restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or
receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service
information regarding the citizenship or immigration status,
lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
[(b) Additional Authority of Government Entities.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local
law, no person or agency may prohibit, or in any way restrict,
a Federal, State, or local government entity from doing any of
the following with respect to information regarding the
immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual:
[(1) Sending such information to, or requesting or
receiving such information from, the Immigration and
Naturalization Service.
[(2) Maintaining such information.
[(3) Exchanging such information with any other
Federal, State, or local government entity.]
(a) In General.--The right of any Federal, State, or local
government entity, official, or other personnel to comply with
or enforce the immigration laws (as defined in section
101(a)(17) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1101(a)(17))), or to assist or cooperate with Federal law
enforcement entities, Federal law enforcement officials,
immigration officials, or other personnel regarding the
enforcement of such laws, shall not be prohibited or in any way
restricted.
(b) Law Enforcement Activities.--
(1) In general.--The right of any Federal, State, or
local government entity, official, or other personnel
to undertake law enforcement activities described under
paragraph (2) as they relate to information regarding
the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or
unlawful, the inadmissibility or deportability, or the
custody status of any individual (including any
information that could reasonably be used to determine
such status, including personal identifying
information) shall not be prohibited or in any way
restricted.
(2) Law enforcement activities described.--The law
enforcement activities described in this paragraph are
the following:
(A) Making inquiries to any individual to
obtain the information described under
paragraph (1) regarding such individual or any
other individuals.
(B) Maintaining the information described
under paragraph (1).
(C) Actions taken by a State, or local
government entity, official, or other personnel
to--
(i) notify the Federal Government
regarding the presence of individuals
who are encountered by law enforcement
officials or other personnel of a State
or local government; and
(ii) comply with requests for such
information from Federal law
enforcement entities, officials, or
other personnel.
(c) Obligation to Respond to Inquiries.--The [Immigration and
Naturalization Service] Department of Homeland Security shall
respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government
agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or
immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of
the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the
requested verification or status information.
(d) Contrary Laws Superseded.--The provisions under
subsections (a) and (b) shall supersede any and all State and
local laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies that directly
or indirectly prohibit or restrict, in whole or in part, the
activities described in such subsections.
(e) Removal.--A civil action or criminal prosecution that is
commenced in a State court and that is against or directed to a
State or local government entity (and an official or other
personnel of the State or local government entity acting in
their official capacities) based on their compliance with
subsection (a) or (b) may be removed by them to the district
court of the United States for the district and division
embracing the place wherein it is pending or to the district
court of the United States for the district and division in
which the defendant was served with process.
(f) Immunity.--A State or local government entity (and an
official or other personnel of the State or local government
entity acting in their official capacities) acting in
compliance with subsection (a) or (b) shall be considered to be
acting under color of Federal authority for purposes of
determining their liability and shall be held harmless for
their compliance in any suit seeking any punitive,
compensatory, or other monetary damages.
(g) Federal Government as Defendant.--Following removal of
any civil action arising out of compliance with subsection (a)
or (b) the United States Government shall be substituted as the
party defendant in the suit.
(h) Mistreatment Exception.--Subsections (f) and (g) shall
not apply for claims the district court determines arose from
any mistreatment of an individual by a State or local
government entity (or an official or other personnel of the
State or local government entity acting in their official
capacities) exercising the rights described under subsection
(a) or (b).
(i) Federal Funding.--
(1) Eligibility for certain grant programs.--A State
or local government that is determined, pursuant to
paragraph (4), to restrict the rights described under
subsection (a) or (b) or that has in effect a statute,
policy, or practice providing that it not comply with
valid Department of Homeland Security detainers issued
pursuant to section 287(d)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(d)(1)), shall not be
eligible to receive for the period described in
paragraph (6)--
(A) any of the funds that would otherwise be
allocated to the State or local government
under section 241(i) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1231(i)), the ``Cops
on the Beat'' program under part Q of title I
of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10381 et seq.), or the
Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant
Program under subpart 1 of part E of title I of
the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act
of 1968 (34 U.S.C. 10151 et seq.); or
(B) any other grant administered by the
Department of Justice or the Department of
Homeland Security that is substantially related
to law enforcement, immigration, enforcement of
the immigration laws, or naturalization.
(2) Transfer of custody of aliens pending removal
proceedings.--The Secretary of Homeland Security, at
the Secretary's sole and unreviewable discretion, may
decline to transfer an alien in the custody of the
Department of Homeland Security to a State or local
government determined, pursuant to paragraph (4), to
restrict the rights described under subsection (a) or
(b), or that has in effect a statute, policy, or
practice providing that it not comply with valid
Department of Homeland Security detainers issued
pursuant to section 287(d)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(d)(1)), regardless of
whether the State or local government has issued a writ
or warrant.
(3) Transfer of custody of certain aliens
prohibited.--The Secretary of Homeland Security shall
not transfer an alien with a final order of removal, as
defined in section 101(a)(47) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(47)), to a State or
local government that is determined, pursuant to
paragraph (4), to restrict the rights described under
subsection (a) or (b), or that has in effect a statute,
policy, or practice providing that it not comply with
valid Department of Homeland Security detainers issued
pursuant to section 287(d)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(d)(1)).
(4) Annual determination.--The Secretary of Homeland
Security, in the Secretary's sole and unreviewable
discretion, shall determine for each fiscal year which
States and local governments restrict the rights
described under subsection (a) or (b), or that have in
effect a statute, policy, or practice providing that
they not comply with valid Department of Homeland
Security detainers issued pursuant to section 287(d)(1)
of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C.
1357(d)(1)), and shall report such determinations to
the Committees on the Judiciary of the House of
Representatives and the Senate by March 1 of each
succeeding fiscal year.
(5) Reports.--The Secretary of Homeland Security
shall issue a report on the annual determination made
under paragraph (4) at the request of the Committees on
the Judiciary of the House of Representatives and the
Senate.
(6) Period described.--Any jurisdiction that is
determined to restrict the rights established under
subsection (a) or (b) or that has in effect a statute,
policy, or practice providing that it not comply with
valid Department of Homeland Security detainers issued
pursuant to section 287(d)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(d)(1)) shall be
ineligible to receive Federal financial assistance as
provided in paragraph (1)--
(A) for a period of 1 year; or
(B) until the Secretary of Homeland Security
certifies that the jurisdiction has come into
compliance, whichever is later.
(7) Reallocation.--Any funds that are not allocated
to a State or to a local government due to the State or
local government restricting the rights described under
subsection (a) or (b), or that has in effect a statute,
policy, or practice providing that it not comply with
valid Department of Homeland Security detainers issued
pursuant to section 287(d)(1) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357(d)(1)), shall be
reallocated to States or local governments that comply
with each such subsection.
* * * * * * *
----------
IMMIGRATION AND NATIONALITY ACT
* * * * * * *
TITLE II--IMMIGRATION
* * * * * * *
Chapter 9--Miscellaneous
* * * * * * *
powers of immigration officers and employees
Sec. 287. (a) Any officer or employee of the Service
authorized under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General
shall have power without warrant--
(1) to interrogate any alien or person believed to be
an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the
United States;
(2) to arrest any alien who in his presence or view
is entering or attempting to enter the United States in
violation of any law or regulation made in pursuance of
law regulating the admission, exclusion, expulsion or
removal of aliens, or to arrest any alien in the United
States, if he has reason to believe that the alien so
arrested is in the United States in violation of any
such law or regulation and is likely to escape before a
warrant can be obtained for his arrest, but the alien
arrested shall be taken without unnecessary delay for
examination before an officer of the Service having
authority to examine aliens as to their right to enter
or remain in the United States;
(3) within a reasonable distance from any external
boundary of the United States, to board and search for
aliens any vessel within the territorial waters of the
United States and any railway car, aircraft,
conveyance, or vehicle, and within a distance of
twenty-five miles from any such external boundary to
have access to private lands, but not dwellings for the
purpose of patrolling the border to prevent the illegal
entry of aliens into the United States;
(4) to make arrests for felonies which have been
committed and which are cognizable under any law of the
United States regulating the admission, exclusion,
expulsion or removal of aliens, if he has reason to
believe that the person so arrested is guilty of such
felony and if there is likelihood of the person
escaping before a warrant can be obtained for his
arrest, but the person arrested shall be taken without
unnecessary delay before the nearest available officer
empowered to commit persons charged with offenses
against the laws of the United States; and
(5) to make arrests--
(A) for any offense against the United
States, if the offense is committed in the
officer's or employee's presence, or
(B) for any felony cognizable under the laws
of the United States, if the officer or
employee has reasonable grounds to believe that
the person to be arrested has committed or is
committing such a felony,
if the officer or employee is performing duties
relating to the enforcement of the immigration laws at
the time of the arrest and if there is a likelihood of
the person escaping before a warrant can be obtained
for his arrest.
Under regulations prescribed by the Attorney General, an
officer or employee of the Service may carry a firearm and may
execute and serve any order, warrant, subpoena, summons, or
other process issued under the authority of the United States.
The authority to make arrests under paragraph (5)(B) shall only
be effective on and after the date on which the Attorney
General publishes final regulations which (i) prescribe the
categories of officers and employees of the Service who may use
force (including deadly force) and the circumstances under
which such force may be used, (ii) establish standards with
respect to enforcement activities of the Service, (iii) require
that any officer or employee of the Service is not authorized
to make arrests under paragraph (5)(B) unless the officer or
employee has received certification as having completed a
training program which covers such arrests and standards
described in clause (ii), and (iv) establish an expedited,
internal review process for violations of such standards, which
process is consistent with standard agency procedure regarding
confidentiality of matters related to internal investigations.
(b) Any officer or employee of the Service designated by the
Attorney General, whether individually or as one of a class,
shall have power and authority to administer oaths and to take
and consider evidence concerning the privilege of any person to
enter, reenter, pass through, or reside in the United States,
or concerning any matter which is material or relevant to the
enforcement of this Act and the administration of the Service;
and any person to whom such oath has been administered (or who
has executed an unsworn declaration, certificate, verification,
or statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under
section 1746 of title 28, United States Code), under the
provisions of this Act, who shall knowingly or willfully give
false evidence or swear (or subscribe under penalty of perjury
as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States
Code) to any false statement concerning any matter referred to
in this subsection shall be guilty of perjury and shall be
punished as provided by section 1621, title 18, United States
Code.
(c) Any officer or employee of the Service authorized and
designated under regulations prescribed by the Attorney
General, whether individually or as one of a class, shall have
power to conduct a search, without warrant, of the person, and
of the personal effects in the possession of any person seeking
admission to the United States, concerning whom such officer or
employee may have reasonable cause to suspect that grounds
exist for denial of admission to the United States under this
Act which would be disclosed by such search.
[(d) In the case of an alien who is arrested by a Federal,
State, or local law enforcement official for a violation of any
law relating to controlled substances, if the official (or
another official)--
[(1) has reason to believe that the alien may not
have been lawfully admitted to the United States or
otherwise is not lawfully present in the United States,
[(2) expeditiously informs an appropriate officer or
employee of the Service authorized and designated by
the Attorney General of the arrest and of facts
concerning the status of the alien, and
[(3) requests the Service to determine promptly
whether or not to issue a detainer to detain the alien,
the officer or employee of the Service shall promptly determine
whether or not to issue such a detainer. If such a detainer is
issued and the alien is not otherwise detained by Federal,
State, or local officials, the Attorney General shall
effectively and expeditiously take custody of the alien.]
(d) Detainer of Inadmissible or Deportable Aliens.--
(1) In general.--In the case of an individual who is
arrested by any Federal, State, or local law
enforcement official or other personnel for the alleged
violation of any criminal or motor vehicle law, the
Secretary of Homeland Security shall issue a detainer
regarding the individual to any Federal, State, or
local law enforcement entity, official, or other
personnel if the Secretary has probable cause to
believe that the individual is an inadmissible or
deportable alien.
(2) Probable cause.--Probable cause is established if
any of the following criteria is met:
(A) The individual who is the subject of the
detainer matches, pursuant to biometric
confirmation or other Federal database records,
the identity of an alien who the Secretary has
reasonable grounds to believe to be
inadmissible or deportable.
(B) The individual who is the subject of the
detainer is the subject of ongoing removal
proceedings, including matters in which a
charging document has been served.
(C) The individual who is the subject of the
detainer has previously been ordered removed
from the United States and such an order is
administratively final.
(D) The individual who is the subject of the
detainer has made voluntary statements to an
immigration officer or there is other reliable
evidence that affirmatively indicates that the
individual is an inadmissible or deportable
alien.
(E) The Secretary otherwise has reasonable
grounds to believe that the individual who is
the subject of the detainer is an inadmissible
or deportable alien.
(3) Transfer of custody.--If the Federal, State, or
local law enforcement entity, official, or other
personnel to whom a detainer is issued complies with
the detainer and detains for purposes of transfer of
custody to the Department of Homeland Security the
individual who is the subject of the detainer, the
Department may take custody of the individual within 48
hours (excluding weekends and holidays), but in no
instance more than 96 hours, following the date that
the individual is otherwise to be released from the
custody of the relevant Federal, State, or local law
enforcement entity.
(4) Removal.--A civil action or criminal prosecution
that is commenced in a State court and that is against
or directed to a State or local government entity (and
an official or other personnel of the State or local
government entity acting in their official capacities),
and a nongovernmental entity (and its personnel)
contracted by the State or local government for the
purpose of providing detention, acting in compliance
with a Department of Homeland Security detainer issued
pursuant to this section that temporarily holds an
alien in their custody pursuant to the terms of a
detainer so that the alien may be taken into the
custody of the Department of Homeland Security may be
removed by them to the district court of the United
States for the district and division embracing the
place wherein it is pending or to the district court of
the United States for the district and division in
which the defendant was served with process.
(5) Immunity.--A State or local government entity
(and an official or other personnel of the State or
local government entity acting in their official
capacities), and a nongovernmental entity (and its
personnel) contracted by the State or local government
for the purpose of providing detention, acting in
compliance with a Department of Homeland Security
detainer issued pursuant to this section that
temporarily holds an alien in their custody pursuant to
the terms of a detainer so that the alien may be taken
into the custody of the Department of Homeland
Security, shall be considered to be acting under color
of Federal authority for purposes of determining their
liability and shall be held harmless for their
compliance with the detainer in any suit seeking any
punitive, compensatory, or other monetary damages.
(6) Federal government as defendant.--Following
removal of any civil action arising out of the
compliance with a Department of Homeland Security
detainer by a State or local government (and the
officials and personnel of the State or local
government acting in their official capacities), or a
nongovernmental entity (and its personnel) contracted
by the State or local government for the purpose of
providing detention, the United States Government shall
be substituted as the party defendant in the suit in
regard to the detention resulting from compliance with
the detainer.
(7) Mistreatment exception.--Paragraphs (5) and (6)
shall not apply for claims the district court
determines arose from any mistreatment of an individual
by a State or a local government (and the officials and
personnel of the State or local government acting in
their official capacities), or a nongovernmental entity
(and its personnel) contracted by the State or local
government for the purpose of providing detention.
(8) Contrary laws superseded.--The provisions under
this section shall supersede any and all State and
local laws, ordinances, regulations, and policies that
directly or indirectly prohibit or restrict, in whole
or in part, the activities described in such section.
(9) Private right of action.--
(A) Cause of action.--Any individual, or a
spouse, parent, or child of that individual (if
the individual is deceased), who is the victim
of a murder, rape, any felony (as such terms
are defined by the prosecuting jurisdiction),
or any aggravated felony (as defined in section
101(a)(43) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(43)), for which an alien
has been convicted may bring an action for
compensatory damages against a State or local
government (or public official acting in an
official capacity) in the appropriate Federal
court if the State or local government, except
as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (D)--
(i) released the alien from custody
prior to the commission of such crime
as a consequence of the State or local
government declining to honor a
detainer issued pursuant to paragraph
(1);
(ii) has in effect a statute, policy,
or practice not in compliance with
section 642 of the Illegal Immigration
Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act
of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373) and as a
consequence of its statute, policy, or
practice, released the alien from
custody prior to the commission of such
crime; or
(iii) has in effect a statute,
policy, or practice requiring a
subordinate local government to decline
to honor any or all detainers issued
pursuant to paragraph (1) and as a
consequence of its statute, policy or
practice, the subordinate local
government declined to honor a detainer
issued pursuant to such section and
released the alien from custody prior
to the commission of such crime.
(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not
apply to any individual who committed an
offense described in such subparagraph.
(C) Limitation on bringing action.--An action
may not be brought under this paragraph later
than the date that is 10 years following the
commission of the crime, or death of a person
as a result of such crime, whichever occurs
later.
(D) Proper defendant.--If a subordinate local
government--
(i) declines to honor a detainer
issued pursuant to paragraph (1) as a
consequence of a prohibition imposed on
that subordinate local government by a
State or another local government with
jurisdiction over the subordinate local
government that prohibits the
subordinate local government from
honoring the detainer or fully
complying with section 642 of the
Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8
U.S.C. 1373); and
(ii) as a consequence of the statute
or other legal requirement of the State
or local government, the subdivision
released the alien referred to in
subparagraph (A) from custody prior to
the commission of the crime referred to
in that paragraph,
the State or other local government that
imposed the prohibition shall be the proper
defendant in a cause of action under this
subsection, and no such cause of action may be
maintained against the local government that
declined to honor the detainer.
(E) Attorney's fees and other costs.--In any
action or proceeding under this paragraph, the
court shall award a prevailing plaintiff a
reasonable attorney's fee and a reasonable
expert fee as part of the costs.
(F) Retroactivity.--Subject to the limitation
in subparagraph (C), an action under
subparagraph (A) may be brought with respect to
an offense described in such subparagraph (A)--
(i) committed not earlier than 10
years before the date of enactment of
the Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of
2026; or
(ii) committed on or after the date
of enactment of the Shut Down Sanctuary
Policies Act of 2026.
(e) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section other
than paragraph (3) of subsection (a), an officer or employee of
the Service may not enter without the consent of the owner (or
agent thereof) or a properly executed warrant onto the premises
of a farm or other outdoor agricultural operation for the
purpose of interrogating a person believed to be an alien as to
the person's right to be or to remain in the United States.
(f)(1) Under regulations of the Attorney General, the
Commissioner shall provide for the fingerprinting and
photographing of each alien 14 years of age or older against
whom a proceeding is commenced under section 240.
(2) Such fingerprints and photographs shall be made available
to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies, upon
request.
(g)(1) Notwithstanding section 1342 of title 31, United
States Code, the Attorney General may enter into a written
agreement with a State, or any political subdivision of a
State, pursuant to which an officer or employee of the State or
subdivision, who is determined by the Attorney General to be
qualified to perform a function of an immigration officer in
relation to the investigation, apprehension, or detention of
aliens in the United States (including the transportation of
such aliens across State lines to detention centers), may carry
out such function at the expense of the State or political
subdivision and to the extent consistent with State and local
law.
(2) An agreement under this subsection shall require that an
officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a
State performing a function under the agreement shall have
knowledge of, and adhere to, Federal law relating to the
function, and shall contain a written certification that the
officers or employees performing the function under the
agreement have received adequate training regarding the
enforcement of relevant Federal immigration laws.
(3) In performing a function under this subsection, an
officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a
State shall be subject to the direction and supervision of the
Attorney General.
(4) In performing a function under this subsection, an
officer or employee of a State or political subdivision of a
State may use Federal property or facilities, as provided in a
written agreement between the Attorney General and the State or
subdivision.
(5) With respect to each officer or employee of a State or
political subdivision who is authorized to perform a function
under this subsection, the specific powers and duties that may
be, or are required to be, exercised or performed by the
individual, the duration of the authority of the individual,
and the position of the agency of the Attorney General who is
required to supervise and direct the individual, shall be set
forth in a written agreement between the Attorney General and
the State or political subdivision.
(6) The Attorney General may not accept a service under this
subsection if the service will be used to displace any Federal
employee.
(7) Except as provided in paragraph (8), an officer or
employee of a State or political subdivision of a State
performing functions under this subsection shall not be treated
as a Federal employee for any purpose other than for purposes
of chapter 81 of title 5, United States Code (relating to
compensation for injury), and sections 2671 through 2680 of
title 28, United States Code (relating to tort claims).
(8) An officer or employee of a State or political
subdivision of a State acting under color of authority under
this subsection, or any agreement entered into under this
subsection, shall be considered to be acting under color of
Federal authority for purposes of determining the liability,
and immunity from suit, of the officer or employee in a civil
action brought under Federal or State law.
(9) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require
any State or political subdivision of a State to enter into an
agreement with the Attorney General under this subsection.
(10) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to require
an agreement under this subsection in order for any officer or
employee of a State or political subdivision of a State--
(A) to communicate with the Attorney General
regarding the immigration status of any individual,
including reporting knowledge that a particular alien
is not lawfully present in the United States; or
(B) otherwise to cooperate with the Attorney General
in the identification, apprehension, detention, or
removal of aliens not lawfully present in the United
States.
(h) An alien described in section 101(a)(27)(J) of the
Immigration and Nationality Act who has been battered, abused,
neglected, or abandoned, shall not be compelled to contact the
alleged abuser (or family member of the alleged abuser) at any
stage of applying for special immigrant juvenile status,
including after a request for the consent of the Secretary of
Homeland Security under section 101(a)(27)(J)(iii)(I) of such
Act.
* * * * * * *
Dissenting Views
I strongly oppose H.R. 7640, the so-called Shutdown
Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026. This legislation is a full-
blown assault on the Tenth Amendment--the right of the people
in our state and local governments not to be conscripted and
coerced into service and commandeered by the federal government
to implement federal policies chosen at a different level of
government.
It is an attempt to force every state and local government
in America to turn every police officer into an agent of the
Trump Administration's incompetent and dangerous immigration
operations.
You might love what Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE) has been doing in Minneapolis or you might hate it; you
might love the idea of sanctuary communities or you might hate
it; but to believe in the Constitution is to respect it and
defend it even if it gets in the way of your momentary
political passions or your party conference's policy agenda.
It is not enough for my Republican colleagues that the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) now has more than 80,000
officers of its own--more than the number of police officers in
New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Houston, Washington, D.C., Las
Vegas, and Dallas, combined--or that it has a larger annual
budget than 150 countries on Earth.
They now also want to force every local and state police
officer in America to report to ICE and Customs and Border
Protection (CBP), to participate in their operations, and to
follow their policy orders.
This is plainly in violation of the Supreme Court's
powerful decision in Printz v. United States, where Justice
Antonin Scalia decided for the Court that the federal
government may not compel state and local governments and
officials to enforce and implement federal laws.\1\ The
decision struck down the provision of the Brady Handgun
Violence Prevention Act that required local law enforcement
like sheriffs and police chiefs to cooperate with the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation to conduct background checks on all
handgun purchasers in America. The purpose was to prevent the
indisputable violence and bloodshed of innocent Americans
caused by improper applicants obtaining a firearm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Printz v. United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
But the landmark decision held that congressional
``commandeering'' of state and local officials, state and local
governments, and state and local taxpayer resources violates
the Tenth Amendment principles of federalism and dual
sovereignty. The Constitution does not grant Congress the power
to force state executives to administer federal programs even
for an excellent public safety program that will save lives, as
the Brady background check indisputably does.
It was Sheriffs Jay Printz of Montana and Richard Mack of
Arizona who challenged the federal requirement, arguing it
unconstitutionally compelled them, as local law enforcement
officials, to enforce federal law. The Court found that
coercing state officials to enforce federal laws violates the
sovereignty and integrity of state and local governments under
the Tenth Amendment, blurring the critical lines of political
accountability in American federalism and conscripting state
and local taxpayers to subsidize federal priorities with their
limited local tax dollars and revenues.
This bill runs into the exact same problem. It would
prohibit states from having laws or policies that set any
limits on how much time and resources state and local officers
can spend on federal immigration enforcement, even if doing so
comes at the expense of prioritizing federal priorities,
however wise or foolish, over the safety and needs of their own
communities.
It would also strip significant federal funding from any
jurisdiction that keeps such policies in place. This is a
Godfather offer and what the Supreme Court has repeatedly
called an unconstitutional condition, an effort to condition a
community's receipt of federal funding on the surrender of a
constitutional right or power. In another Supreme Court
decision, National Federation of Independent Business v.
Sebelius, the Court noted that the Tenth Amendment's
prohibition holds ``true whether Congress directly commands a
State to regulate or indirectly coerces a State to adopt a
federal regulatory system as its own.''\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\Nat'l Fed'n of Indep. Bus. v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519, 577-78
(2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This bill would defund state and local police departments
simply because they dare to require that all of their
employees' time be used for enforcing state and local laws and
keeping their communities safe according to state and local
policy rather than the overwhelmingly unpopular policies of a
federal department, in this case the chaotic lawlessness and
incompetence of DHS.
It's perfectly obvious that this legislation is a clear
effort by Republicans to go beyond the hundreds of billions of
dollars showered upon the DHS into commandeering the resources
of state and local governments and officials who have their own
priorities, in violation of the Supreme Court's ruling in
Printz. States and local jurisdictions have made their own
choices on how much of their resources to devote to assisting
the federal government's immigration priorities. Some
Democratic leaders and jurisdictions that do not have so-called
sanctuary policies at all, and among those that do, there is a
huge spectrum of policies that have all been described as
offering sanctuary. The Tenth Amendment and Printz give state
and locality the right to make those decisions for themselves.
If the Majority truly believes this bill is somehow
constitutional, then it offers a roadmap for future majorities
to conscript state and local law enforcement into helping
enforce their own federal policy priorities. A future Congress
could create a right of all state and local law enforcement
officers to assist the federal government in conducting
background checks on prospective handgun purchasers, for
example. The Congress could then strike down any state or local
laws, rules, or policies that infringe on that right. And if
that's not enough, Congress could cut off all federal law
enforcement grants to jurisdictions that aren't sufficiently
compliant.
Democrats offered numerous amendments at markup to try to
minimize the damage of this reckless legislation, most of which
were defeated on a party line vote. For example, Representative
Lucy McBath (D-GA) offered an amendment to strip a provision of
the bill which makes jurisdictions ineligible for vast amounts
of federal funding from the Department of Justice and DHS,
including the COPS and Byrne/JAG programs, which is a major
source of funding for state and local law enforcement, and
supports public safety in communities across the country.
Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) offered an amendment to
ensure that no jurisdiction could lose funding related to
providing support for victims of human trafficking, domestic
violence, sexual assault or sexual abuse. I offered an
amendment to ensure that the bill does not conflict with the
Tenth Amendment, and Representative Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA)
offered one limiting the ability of the federal government to
require state and local law enforcement officers to enforce
immigration law or cooperate with immigration enforcement
efforts while wearing a mask or other face covering.
One amendment, offered by Representative Mary Gay Scanlon
(D-PA), did garner some bipartisan support, but was ultimately
defeated by the Majority as well. It would have limited the
ability of the federal government to force state and local law
enforcement officers to violate the Fourth Amendment by
forcibly entering homes without a judicial warrant while
engaging in immigration enforcement.
Republicans have showered hundreds of billions of dollars
on DHS in the last year, but that is apparently not enough for
them. Now they want to unconstitutionally commandeer the
resources of state and local governments and officials that do
not wish to further the Trump Administration's lawless, cruel,
and dangerous immigration policies.
I oppose this legislation, and I urge my colleagues to do
the same.
Jamie Raskin,
Ranking Member.
[all]