Sanctuary cities explainer
The facts about sanctuary policies and jurisdictions can be difficult to nail down, beginning with just how many exist.
At the high end of estimates, there are about 15 sanctuary states, more than 150 sanctuary counties, and about 50 sanctuary cities in the United States, according to a June 29, 2026, count by the Center for Immigration Studies, an organization that works to limit all immigration to the United States and has a generally broad definition of sanctuary jurisdictions. [1]
By contrast, the U.S. Department of Justice included just 12 states, four counties, and 19 cities in an August 5, 2025, list of sanctuary jurisdictions. [2]
What is a sanctuary jurisdiction?
One reason sanctuary jurisdictions are difficult to count is that there is no official legal definition of sanctuary city or sanctuary jurisdiction in the United States. These terms generally refer to towns, cities, counties, or even entire states that decline to cooperate completely with federal requests related to immigrants without legal status. [3]
The American Immigration Council, an organization that works to protect immigrant rights, notes that âsanctuary policies take many formsâ but offers eight general policy categories that sanctuary jurisdictions may adopt:
- Policies that limit âthe ability of state and local police to make arrests for federal civil immigration violations, or to detain individuals on civil immigration warrantsâ
- Policies that ban ââ287(g)â agreements through which Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deputizes local law enforcement officers to enforce federal immigration lawâ
- Policies that ban âlocal governments from entering into a contract with the federal government to hold immigrants in detentionâ
- Policies that disallow or limit immigration detention centers
- Policies that prevent âthe police or other city workers from asking about immigration statusâ
- Policies that limit what information about immigrants a jurisdiction can share with the federal government
- Policies that limit or ban âlocal police responses to federal immigration detainersâ
- Policies that ban ICE authorities from entering âinto local jails without a judicial warrantâ [3]
Jurisdictions typically adopt one or more of the above types of policies, with varying degrees of implementation. And even jurisdictions with strict sanctuary policies generally cooperate with federal immigration requests when an immigrant without legal status has committed a serious or violent crime. Furthermore, even jurisdictions with sanctuary policies add the fingerprints of anyone booked into prison or jail to a database accessible by the federal government, regardless of citizenship status, which can allow the federal government to locate an immigrant without legal status for potential deportation. [3]
Sanctuary policies do not restrict the ability of federal officials to enforce immigration laws, and they do not prevent immigrants without legal status from being arrested for crimes by any law enforcement agency. [3] [4]
Origins of sanctuary policies
Sanctuary cities grew from the Sanctuary Movement of the late 1980s and early 1990s, in which religious congregations began helping Salvadoran and Guatemalan families without legal status settle in the United States. The congregations acted in direct defiance of U.S. immigration authorities, who had denied over 90 percent of asylum requests by immigrants fleeing violence in El Salvador and Guatemala. The sanctuary activists believed that the federal government was breaking international and domestic refugee laws. [5] [6]
Los Angeles was the first large American city to enact sanctuary policies. Police chief Daryl F. Gates enacted Special Order No. 40 on November 27, 1979, stating that police officers should not inquire about immigration status and should provide city services to everyone equally. San Francisco followed suit, passing the âCity of Refugeâ resolution in 1985 and the âCity of Refugeâ ordinance in 1989, which required that all city employees stop immigration policing and provide city services to all residents regardless of immigration status. [6] [7] [8] [9]
Federal initiatives including Section 287(g) of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRAIRA) and Secure Communities (launched in 2008 and intermittently enforced since) worked to shift some federal immigration enforcement capabilities to local authorities. 287(g) agreements have three models:
- Jail enforcement model: Local law enforcement officers are empowered to âidentify and processâ immigrants with âpending or activeâcriminal charges,â according to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
- Task force model: Local law enforcement officers are empowered âto enforce limitedâimmigrationâauthority while performingâroutineâpolice dutiesâor as an active participantâin anâICE-ledâtask force.â
- Warrant service model: Local law enforcement officers are empowered âto serve andâexecute administrative warrantsâ on immigrants in custody. [10]
Secure Communities âautomated a system by which, when an individual was arrested and their fingerprints were taken for a background check, the fingerprints would also be sent to ICE to check the individualâs immigration status,â according to Chloe N. East, associate professor at the University of Colorado Boulder. This system is the one used by local law enforcement when anyone is booked into jail. [11]
As a result of these federal programs, many jurisdictions passed sanctuary policies to make clear that local law enforcement authorities and resources were not to be used for federal immigration enforcement. [12]
On the other hand, some states passed laws banning sanctuary policies. Texas took state immigration enforcement a step further in 2023 by passing SB 4, which makes unlawful entry into the United States, reentry, and failure to comply with a state immigration removal order state crimes. [13]
The legal debate
Rhetoric can become heated and partisan when debating the legality of sanctuary jurisdictions, but legal precedent supports the right of non-federal jurisdictions to enact such policies.
The Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
According to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, the Tenth Amendment prevents the âfederal government from coercing state or local governments to use their resources to enforce a federal regulatory program, like immigration,â and thus Congress cannot compel state or local governments to collect immigration status information in order to share it with the federal government. [14]
Called the âanti-commandeering doctrine,â this interpretation of the Tenth Amendment has long held up in court, with roots in whether states were required to uphold the federal Fugitive Slave Act. The precedent has been more recently applied to attempts by the federal government to withhold funding from sanctuary jurisdictions. For information on specific cases, see ProConâs list of anti-commandeering court cases below. [15]
Furthermore, as George Mason University law professor Ilya Somin notes, efforts to restrict federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions simply for having sanctuary policies have not held up in court:
longstanding Supreme Court precedent holds that conditions on federal grants must 1) be enacted and clearly indicated by Congress (the executive cannot make up its own grant conditions), 2) be related to the purposes of the grant in question (here, transportation grants cannot be conditioned on immigration enforcement), and 3) not be âcoercive.â [16]
Thus, Pres. Donald Trumpâs executive orders that tie federal funds to immigration enforcement cooperation have so far been overturned in court cases including County of Santa Clara v. Trump (2017) and City and County of San Francisco v. Trump (2017). [17] [18] [19]
Who may be protected by sanctuary policies?
The most recent estimates suggest about 14 million immigrants without legal status lived in the United States as of 2023. According to Jeffrey S. Passel, a senior demographer at Pew Research Center, there are three general categories of immigrants without legal status in the United States who may be protected by sanctuary policies. [20]
1. Visa overstays and violations
This group includes people who entered the U.S. legally but overstayed their visas or otherwise violated the terms of their admission. [20]
Though estimates are difficult to calculate, sources agree that about 40â50 percent of immigrants without legal status in the United States have overstayed their visas. While not permitted legally, overstaying a visa is a civil offense rather than a criminal offense. The penalties for overstaying a visa include the visa being voided for travel, extra steps for future visa applications, and 3- or 10-year reentry bans. [21] [22] [23]
2. TPS status changes
This group includes people with temporary protected status (TPS) that the government revoked or changed when immigration policy shifted. [20]
Immigrants with TPS may end up in a legal limbo if their TPS status is revoked, as has happened during the second Trump administration with immigrants from Afghanistan, Cameroon, Haiti, Honduras, Myanmar, Nepal, Nicaragua, South Sudan, Syria, Venezuela, and Yemen (about one million immigrants total). If an immigrantâs TPS authorization is ended, they may become unprotected and subject to deportation if they have no other protected immigration status such as a student visa or green card. As of October 2026 about 273,200 immigrants from El Salvador, Lebanon, Sudan, and Ukraine continue to have TPS authorization, but their status is set to expire by 2027. [24] [25] [26]
3. Illegal entry
This group includes people who crossed into the United States illegally. [20]
The remainder of the population of immigrants without legal status in the United States are those who crossed an American border illegally (legally called âentry without inspectionâ). The first illegal entry is a federal misdemeanor, but every subsequent illegal entry is a federal felony. Anyone who enters the country illegally is subject to deportation and a 3- or 10-year ban. If a person enters the U.S. illegally and stays for a year or longer, they are subject to a permanent ban if they depart and later reenter the U.S. [23]
The criminal element
Some of the debate about sanctuary policies boils down to the claim that immigrants without legal status are violent criminals. While illegal entry is a criminal offense, as noted above, a significant percentage of immigrants without legal status entered the country legally, and an overstay is not a criminal offense.
Furthermore, when rhetoric is heated, some argue that immigrants without legal status as a group are dangerous and violent criminals. However, research has concluded that immigrants without legal status are less likely to commit crimes than American citizens.
A study published in 2020 analyzed arrests in Texas (the only state that consistently records immigration status of people arrested) from 2012 to 2018. Immigrants without legal status committed significantly fewer crimes than citizens born in the United States across the board: violent crimes (54.8 percent fewer), property crimes (76.7 percent fewer), drug violations (59.7 percent fewer), and traffic violations (44.2 percent fewer). [27]
Even when boiled down to specific crimes, immigrants without legal status committed significantly fewer than citizens born in the United States: 82.1 percent fewer robberies, 80.2 percent fewer thefts, 73.9 percent fewer arsons, 71.2 percent fewer burglaries, 60.4 percent fewer homicides, 51.6 percent fewer assaults, and 37.9 percent fewer sexual assaults. [27]
The authors of the study concluded:
Contrary to public perception, we observe considerably lower felony arrest rates among undocumented immigrants compared to legal immigrants and native-born US citizens and find no evidence that undocumented criminality has increased in recent years. [27]
After their own research, Alex Nowrasteh and Michelangelo Landgrave of the libertarian Cato Institute separately concluded:
People commonly assume that immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than native-born Americans, especially illegal immigrants. Tragic individual murders by immigrants seem to support this perception, and it affects the public debate over immigration policy. However, this perception is not supported by the facts. Although the number of illegal immigrants and the crimes they commit are notoriously difficult to measure, available evidence shows that they are less crime-prone than native-born Americans. [28]
Furthermore, other studies have shown that sanctuary policies themselves do not raise crime rates. Two 2017 studies found crime was lower in sanctuary counties compared to those without sanctuary policies. A 2019 study concluded that sanctuary policies in Florida counties did not raise crime rates. A 2020 study concluded that sanctuary policies have âno measurable effect on crime.â A 2022 study found that crime rates dropped in sanctuary counties. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]
The cost of sanctuary policies
Sanctuary policies can place an unsustainable financial burden on local budgets by positioning cities as landing zones for immigrants without legal status.
In August 2023 then-Mayor Eric Adams noted an influx of immigrants without legal status to New York City:
They do not have the authorization to work, so we have to provide shelter. We have supplied food and access to healthcare. We have enrolled children in schools. We have opened almost 200 emergency sites, including more than a dozen large-scale humanitarian relief centers. And we have assisted migrants with asylum applications. [34]
Adams said the city was âpast our breaking point. New Yorkersâ compassion may be limitless, but our resources are not.â He explained the costs of maintaining the sanctuary policy that year:
We spend an average of $383 per night to provide shelter, food, medical care, and social services. With more than 57,300 individuals currently in our care, on an average night, it amounts to $9.8 million a day, almost $300 million a month, and nearly $3.6 billion a year. [34]
While Adams noted, âThis is not just about numbers. This is about people fleeing despair and trauma,â he concluded that the federal government needed to aid the city with funds and strategy. [34]
In December 2023 Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson also noted that an influx of immigrants without legal status was taxing the âinfrastructure[s] in our local communities that are not designed to carry such a burden.â [35]
However, sanctuary policies have been shown to help local economies. According to political science professor Tom K. Wong, the median household income in sanctuary counties is an average of $4,352.70 higher than in non-sanctuary counties, driven largely by an average increase of $2,836.10 in median income for white families. Sanctuary counties also have lower poverty rates: 2.3 percent lower for everyone in the county, 1.4 percent lower for the white population, and 2.9 percent lower for the Latino population. [32]
Additionally, reliance on public assistance and unemployment are lower in sanctuary counties, while labor force participation is higher. [32]
Anti-commandeering court cases
Prigg v. Pennsylvania (1842)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that states cannot be made to enforce the federal Fugitive Slave Act. Justice Joseph Story, writing for the majority, stated:
The States cannot, therefore, be compelled to enforce them [the provisions of the federal law], and it might well be deemed an unconstitutional exercise of the power of interpretation to insist that the States are bound to provide means to carry into effect the duties of the National Government, nowhere delegated or entrusted to them by the Constitution.
Kentucky v. Dennison (1861)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal government could not compel the governor of Ohio to extradite to Kentucky a free Black man accused of helping an enslaved woman escape. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, writing for the majority, stated:
It is true that Congress may authorize a particular State officer to perform a particular duty; but if he declines to do so, it does not follow that he may be coerced, or punished for his refusal.
Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining (1981)
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977 because the law regulated private businesses rather than the states and, thus, did not violate the Tenth Amendment.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) v. Mississippi (1982)
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a federal law asking states to consider implementation of federal energy standards, but Justice Harry A. Blackmun, writing for the majority, noted that âthis Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations.â
Puerto Rico v. Branstad (1987)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the governor of Iowa had an obligation to extradite a person awaiting a felony trial to Puerto Rico. With this ruling, the Court reversed Kentucky v. Dennison.
New York v. United States (1992)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that a provision of the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 that required states to dispose of radioactive waste in particular ways, was unconstitutional. Justice Sandra Day OâConnor, writing for the majority, stated:
States are not mere political subdivisions of the United States. State governments are neither regional offices nor administrative agencies of the Federal Government. The positions occupied by state officials appear nowhere on the Federal Governmentâs most detailed organizational chart. The Constitution instead âleaves to the several States a residuary and inviolable sovereignty,ââŠreserved explicitly to the States by the Tenth Amendment. Whatever the outer limits of that sovereignty may be, one thing is clear: The Federal Government may not compel the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program.
Printz v. United States (1997)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal government could not force a state to carry out firearm background checks (this point would become moot in 1998 when the FBI created the National Instant Criminal Background Check System). Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia stated:
The Framers [of the U.S. Constitution] rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people.âŠThe power of the Federal Government would be augmented immeasurably if it were able to impress into its serviceâand at no cost to itselfâthe police officers of the 50 States.
National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (2012)
The U.S. Supreme Court held that the federal government could not coerce states to expand Medicaid by withholding federal funds. Chief Justice John Roberts, writing for the majority, stated:
Permitting the Federal Government to force the States to implement a federal program would threaten the political accountability key to our federal system. â[W]here the Federal Government directs the States to regulate, it may be state officials who will bear the brunt of public disapproval, while the federal officials who devised the regulatory program may remain insulated from the electoral ramifications of their decision.ââŠSpending Clause programs do not pose this danger when a State has a legitimate choice whether to accept the federal conditions in exchange for federal funds. In such a situation, state officials can fairly be held politically accountable for choosing to accept or refuse the federal offer. But when the State has no choice, the Federal Government can achieve its objectives without accountability, just as in New York [v. United States] and Printz [v. United States]. Indeed, this danger is heightened when Congress acts under the Spending Clause, because Congress can use that power to implement federal policy it could not impose directly under its enumerated powers.
Galarza v. Szalczyk (2014)
The Third Circuit Court ruled that âimmigration detainers do not and cannot compel a state or local law enforcement agency to detain suspected aliens subject to removal.â
County of Santa Clara v. Trump (2017) and City and County of San Francisco v. Trump (2017)
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that Executive Order 13768 (2017), which denied federal funding to sanctuary jurisdictions, was unconstitutional. Judge William H. Orrick stated:
the Tenth Amendment requires that conditions on federal funds be unambiguous and timely made; that they bear some relation to the funds at issue; and that the total financial incentive not be coercive. Federal funding that bears no meaningful relationship to immigration enforcement cannot be threatened merely because a jurisdiction chooses an immigration enforcement strategy of which the President disapproves.
The Ninth Circuit Court upheld the ruling in 2018.
Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) (2018)
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), which outlawed state-authorized sports betting, was unconstitutional. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, stated:
The anticommandeering rule promotes political accountability. When Congress itself regulates, the responsibility for the benefits and burdens of the regulation is apparent. Voters who like or dislike the effects of the regulation know who to credit or blame. By contrast, if a State imposes regulations only because it has been commanded to do so by Congress, responsibility is blurred.
City of Chicago v. Barr (2020)
The Seventh Circuit Court held that the attorney general could not withhold a federal grant unless Chicago changed the cityâs sanctuary status. Writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, Judge Ilana Rovner stated:
The Byrne JAG grant was enacted by Congress to support the needs of local law enforcement to help fight crime, yet it now is being used as a hammer to further a completely different policy of the executive branchâpresenting a city such as Chicago with the stark choice of forfeiting the funds or undermining its own law enforcement effectiveness by damaging that cooperative relationship with its residents.âŠ
But states do not forfeit all autonomy over their own police power merely by accepting federal grants. And the Attorney Generalâs perception of the urgency of immigration enforcement does not corral for the executive branch the powers entrusted to the legislative branch. The executive branch has significant powers over immigration matters; the power of the purse is not one of them. This tendency to overlook the formalities of the separation of powers to address the issue-of-the-day has been seen many times by the courts, and it is no more persuasive now than it was in those cases.
U.S. states with laws banning sanctuary policies
Please note that this list may be incomplete. Consult each stateâs linked law for specifics and related immigration laws.
ProCon does not maintain a list of states with sanctuary policies because the definition of sanctuary policy is debatable and often partisan. For example, the U.S. Department of Justice under President Trump listed Colorado as a sanctuary state, but Democratic Gov. Jared Polis has said, âColorado is not a sanctuary state.â [36]
Alabama
Code of Alabama 31-13-5 states:
No official or agency of this state or any political subdivision thereof, including, but not limited to, an officer of a court of this state, may adopt a policy or practice that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws by limiting communication between its officers and federal immigration officials in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1373 or 8 U.S.C. § 1644, or that restricts its officers in the enforcement of this chapter. If, in the judgment of the Attorney General of Alabama, an official or agency of this state or any political subdivision thereof, including, but not limited to, an officer of a court in this state, is in violation of this subsection, the Attorney General shall report any violation of this subsection to the Governor and the state Comptroller and that agency or political subdivision shall not be eligible to receive any funds, grants, or appropriations from the State of Alabama until such violation has ceased and the Attorney General has so certified.
Arizona
Arizona Revised Statutes 11-1051 states:
No official or agency of this state or a county, city, town or other political subdivision of this state may limit or restrict the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
Arkansas
Code of Arkansas Annotated 14-1-103 states:
(1) A municipality shall not enact or adopt a sanctuary policy. (2) A municipality that enacts or adopts a sanctuary policy is ineligible for discretionary moneys provided through funds or grants administered by the state until the sanctuary policy is repealed or no longer in effect.
Florida
Florida Statutes 908.103 states:
Sanctuary policies prohibited.âA state entity, law enforcement agency, or local governmental entity may not adopt or have in effect a sanctuary policy.
Georgia
Code of Georgia 36-80-23 states:
No local governing body, whether acting through its governing body or by an initiative, referendum, or any other process, shall enact, adopt, implement, or enforce any sanctuary policy.âŠAny local governing body that acts in violation of this Code section shall be subject to the withholding of state funding or state administered federal funding other than funds to provide services specified in subsection (d) of Code Section 50-36-1.
Idaho
Idaho Statutes 19-6102 states:
A governmental entity shall not adopt, enforce, or endorse a policy under which the entity prohibits or discourages the enforcement of immigration laws.
Indiana
Indiana Code 5-2-18.2-3 states:
A governmental body or a postsecondary educational institution may not enact or implement an ordinance, a resolution, a rule, or a policy, whether written or unwritten, that prohibits or in any way restricts another governmental body or employee of a governmental body or postsecondary educational institution, including a law enforcement officer, a state or local official, or a state or local government employee, from taking the following actions with regard to information of the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual: (1) Communicating or cooperating with federal officials. (2) Sending to or receiving information from the United States Department of Homeland Security. (3) Maintaining information. (4) Exchanging information with another federal, state, or local government entity.
Iowa
Iowa Code 27A.4 states:
A local entity shall not adopt or enforce a policy or take any other action under which the local entity prohibits or discourages the enforcement of immigration laws.
Kansas
Kansas Statutes 12-16,140 states:
No municipality shall enact, implement or enforce an ordinance, resolution, rule or policy that prohibits or in any way restricts a law enforcement officer, local official or local government employee, from taking the following actions with regard to information of the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of an individual: (1) Communicating or cooperating with federal officials; (2) sending to or receiving information from the United States department of homeland security; (3) obtaining or maintaining information; or (4) exchanging information with another federal, state, or local government entity. (b) Any ordinance, resolution, rule or policy that violates subsection (a) is null and void.
Louisiana
Louisiana Revised Statutes 33:82 states:
A state entity, law enforcement agency, or local governmental entity may not adopt or have in effect a sanctuary policy.
Mississippi
Mississippi Code 25-1-119 states:
No agency or department of this state; county, municipality or any other political subdivision of this state; university, college, community college or junior college; or any agent, employee, officer or law enforcement agency thereof shall adopt, implement or have in effect a policy, order, ordinance, practice or procedure, that (a) limits, restricts, bans or interferes with the enforcement of lawful federal immigration laws by any person; (b) limits or prohibits any person from communicating or cooperating with federal agencies or officials to verify or report the immigration status of any person; or (c) grants to any person the right to lawful presence or status within the state, or a county, municipality or any other political subdivision of the state, or the campus of a university, college, community college or junior college in violation of state or federal law.
Missouri
Revised Statutes of Missouri 67.307 states:
No municipality shall enact or adopt any sanctuary policy. Any municipality that enacts or adopts a sanctuary policy shall be ineligible for any moneys provided through grants administered by any state agency or department until the sanctuary policy is repealed or is no longer in effect. Upon the complaint of any state resident regarding a specific government entity, agency, or political subdivision of this state or prior to the provision of funds or awarding of any grants to a government entity, agency, or political subdivision of this state, any member of the general assembly may request that the attorney general of the state of Missouri issue an opinion stating whether the government entity, agency, or political subdivision has current policies in contravention of this section.
Montana
Montana Code Annotated 2-1-602 states:
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2), a state agency or local government may not enact, adopt, implement, enforce, or refer to the electorate a policy that prohibits or restricts a government entity, official, or employee from: (a) sending to, receiving from, exchanging with, or maintaining for a federal, state, or local government entity information regarding a personâs citizenship or immigration status for a lawful purpose; (b) complying with a notification request concerning the release of an individual if the request is lawfully made by the United States department of homeland security acting pursuant to its authority under 8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357 as those sections read on March 31, 2021; or (c) complying with an immigration detainer request if: (i) the request is lawfully made by the United States department of homeland security acting pursuant to its authority under 8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357 as those sections read on March 31, 2021; and (ii) the arrest is authorized under state law. (2) A state agency or local government may not be considered in violation of this section based solely on a policy otherwise subject to subsection (1) that exclusively concerns an individual who comes forward as a victim of or a witness to a criminal offense.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire Revised Statutes 106-R:2 states:
No state government entity, local government entity, or law enforcement agency shall knowingly enact, issue, adopt, promulgate, enforce, permit, endorse, maintain, or have in effect any sanctuary policy.
North Carolina
North Carolina General Statutes 153Aâ145.5 states:
No county may have in effect any policy, ordinance, or procedure that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
North Carolina General Statutes 160A-205.2 states:
No city may have in effect any policy, ordinance, or procedure that limits or restricts the enforcement of federal immigration laws to less than the full extent permitted by federal law.
North Dakota
North Dakota Century Code 44-08-25 states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the state, a political subdivision, or institution of higher education under the supervision of the state board of higher education or any agent or employee of the state, a political subdivision, or the institution of higher education may not adopt or implement, whether formally or informally, a sanctuary policy, including a policy, order, or ordinance that: a. Limits or prohibits an individual from communicating or cooperating with federal agencies or officials to verify or report the immigration status of an individual; b. Grants a noncitizen unlawfully present in the United States the right to lawful presence or status within the state, a political subdivision, or the institution of higher education; c. Violates a provision of chapter 1373 of United States Code title 8 [8 U.S.C. 1373]; d. Restricts or imposes a condition upon the cooperation or compliance of a state agency, department, or office or political subdivision with United States immigration and customs enforcement to maintain custody of or to transfer an illegal alien to the custody of United States immigration and customs enforcement; or e. Prevents a law enforcement officer of a political subdivision from asking an individual in custody the individualâs citizenship or immigration status.
South Carolina
South Carolina Code of Laws 6-1-170 states:
(A) For purposes of this section, âpolitical subdivisionâ includes, but is not limited to, a municipality, county, school district, special purpose district, or public service district. (B) A political subdivision of this State may not enact any ordinance or policy that limits or prohibits a law enforcement officer, local official, or local government employee from seeking to enforce a state law with regard to immigration. (C) A political subdivision of this State may not enact any ordinance or policy that limits or prohibits a law enforcement officer, local official, or local government employee from communicating to appropriate federal or state officials with regard to the immigration status of any person within this State.
South Dakota
South Dakota Codified Laws 23-3-74 states:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no state entity or political subdivision may adopt or implement a policy, order, or ordinance that: (1) Limits or prohibits an individual from communicating or cooperating with a federal agency or official to verify or report the immigration status of another individual; or (2) Grants a noncitizen unlawfully present in the United States the right to lawful presence or status within the state or political subdivision. Any policy, order, or ordinance adopted or implemented in violation of this section is void. No state entity or political subdivision may take disciplinary action against a law enforcement officer based upon the officerâs refusal to comply with or enforce any policy, order, or ordinance in violation of this section.
Tennessee
Tennessee Code 4-42-103 states:
No state governmental entity or official shall adopt or enact a sanctuary policy. A state governmental entity that adopts or enacts a sanctuary policy is ineligible to enter into any grant contract with the department of economic and community development until the sanctuary policy is repealed, rescinded, or otherwise no longer in effect.
Texas
Texas Government Code 752.053 states:
A local entity or campus police department may not: (1) adopt, enforce, or endorse a policy under which the entity or department prohibits or materially limits the enforcement of immigration laws.
West Virginia
West Virginia Code 15-16-2 states:
A state entity, local entity, or law enforcement agency shall not adopt or maintain a law, ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, policy, directive, order, practice, or procedure, formal or informal, written or unwritten, which prohibits or materially restricts the state entity, local entity, or law enforcement agency from complying with or assisting in the enforcement of immigration laws, including, but not limited to, prohibiting or materially restricting the state entity, local entity, or law enforcement agency from prohibiting or otherwise materially restricting any state entity, local entity, or law enforcement agency from assisting in the enforcement of immigration law.
1-minute survey
After reading this debate, take our quick survey to see how this information affected your opinion of this topic. We appreciate your feedback.
Sources
- Jessica M. Vaughan and Bryan Griffith, âMap: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and Statesâ (June 29, 2026), cis.org
- U.S. Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs, âJustice Department Publishes List of Sanctuary Jurisdictionsâ (August 5, 2025), justice.gov
- American Immigration Council, âSanctuary Policies: An Overviewâ (February 21, 2025), americanimmigrationcouncil.org
- Erica Bryant, âWhat Is a Sanctuary City?â (April 22, 2025), vera.org
- Peter Anthony Mancina, âIn the Spirit of Sanctuary: Sanctuary-City Policy Advocacy and the Production of Sanctuary-Power in San Francisco, Californiaâ (July 26, 2016), ir.vanderbilt.edu
- Matthew Green, âââSanctuary Citiesâ Explainedâ (October 25, 2017), kqed.org
- Daryl F. Gates, âSpecial Order No. 40â (November 27, 1979), lapdonline.org (accessed August 24, 2026)
- H.B.C., âWhat Are Sanctuary Cities?â (November 22, 2016), economist.com
- Doug Smith, âHow LAPDâs Law-and-Order Chief Revolutionized the Way Cops Treated Illegal Immigrationâ (February 5, 2017), latimes.com
- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, âDelegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Actâ (August 21, 2026), ice.gov
- Chloe N. East, âSecure Communities: Broad Impacts of Increased Immigration Enforcementâ (January 13, 2020), econofact.org
- Emily Van Fossen and Haley Hamblin, âFederal Immigration Policies That Spurred Sanctuary Jurisdictionsâ (June 11, 2020), niskanencenter.org
- Chelsie Kramer, âTexasâ Controversial SB 4 Immigration Law Goes into Effect at a Critical Moment for the Stateâs Workforceâ (June 29, 2026), americanimmigrationcouncil.org
- Immigrant Legal Resource Center, âFAQ on Federal Grant Conditions and Cooperation with Immigration Enforcementâ (July 2016), ilrc.org
- Caleb Seckman, âAnti-Commandeering: A Modern Doctrine for a Modern Worldâ (2019), nyujll.com
- Ilya Somin, âFederal Court Rules Against Trump Plan to Condition Federal Transportation Grants to States on Cooperation with Federal Deportation Effortsâ (June 20, 2025), reason.com
- Virginia Weeks et al., âCase: County of Santa Clara v. Trump,â clearinghouse.net (accessed August 25, 2026)
- Ava Morgenstern et al., âCase: City and County of San Francisco v. Trump,â clearinghouse.net (accessed August 25, 2026)
- Justia, âCity and County of San Francisco v. Trump (9th Cir. 2018),â law.justia.com (accessed August 25, 2026)
- Jenn Hatfield, âQ&A: How Pew Research Center Estimates the Number of Unauthorized Immigrants Living in the U.S.â (August 22, 2025), pewresearch.org
- Katharina Buchholz, âVisa Overstays Make Up Almost 40 Percent of Illegal U.S. Entriesâ (May 21, 2025), statista.com
- Harriet Duleep et al., âMeasuring the Number of Unauthorized Immigrants in the United States: A Review of the Residual Estimation Methodâ (June 2025), ssa.gov
- Aaron Elinoff, âKey Differences Between Visa Overstays and Illegal Entry Penaltiesâ (July 24, 2026), novo-legal.com
- U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, âTemporary Protected Status,â uscis.gov (accessed August 25, 2026)
- Karen S. Monrreal, âTPS Wind-Downs: Your Options if Temporary Protected Status Endsâ (April 7, 2026), monrreallaw.com
- Carolyne Im and Mia Hennen, âSecond Trump Administration Has Ended Temporary Protected Status for Most Immigrants Who Had Itâ (August 12, 2026), pewresearch.org
- Michael T. Light et al., âComparing Crime Rates Between Undocumented Immigrants, Legal Immigrants, and Native-Born US Citizens in Texasâ (December 7, 2020), pnas.org
- Alex Nowrasteh and Michelangelo Landgrave, âIllegal Immigrant Incarceration Rates, 2010â2024: The Demographics of American Imprisonmentâ (March 25, 2026), cato.org
- Alex Nowrasteh and Andrew C. Forrester, âSanctuary Jurisdictions in Florida Do Not Have Higher Crime Ratesâ (March 29, 2019), cato.org
- David K. Hausman, âSanctuary Policies Reduce Deportations Without Increasing Crimeâ (October 19, 2020), pnas.org
- Marta Ascherio, âDo Sanctuary Policies Increase Crime? Contrary Evidence From a County-Level Investigation in the United States,â Social Science Research (May 19, 2022), pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Tom K. Wong, âThe Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economyâ (January 26, 2017), media.nilc.org
- Tom K. Wong, âThe Effects of Sanctuary Policies on Crime and the Economyâ (January 26, 2017), americanprogress.org
- New York City Office of the Mayor, âTranscript: Mayor Adams Delivers Address on Asylum Seeker Humanitarian Crisis and Takes Q&Aâ (August 9, 2023), nyc.gov
- Sabrina Franza, âChicago Uses $95 Million in COVID-19 Pandemic Aid to Staff Migrant Sheltersâ (December 29, 2023), cbsnews.com
- Delilah Brumer, âColorado Officials Defy Trump Administration After Demand for Immigration Enforcement Helpâ (August 19, 2025), coloradonewsline.com