What Are Sanctuary Cities?

Immigration enforcement not only affects undocumented individuals — it impacts families, employers, and entire communities. In response, sanctuary cities focus on limiting local law enforcement involvement in federal immigration actions. The goal is to balance public safety with protecting immigrant communities. These laws aim to encourage immigrants to report crimes without the fear of deportation. They prioritize resources for local law enforcement instead of supporting federal immigration enforcement. Court rulings have generally favored sanctuary cities, blocking the federal government from conditioning funding on immigration enforcement cooperation.

While some see sanctuary cities as a necessary shield for immigrant communities, others argue they undermine federal law and public safety. Regardless of where you stand, sanctuary policies shape the lives of thousands of immigrants, law enforcement officers, and community members every day. The legal framework behind sanctuary jurisdictions is complex, involving constitutional rights, state laws, and federal enforcement efforts. If you’re facing immigration-related legal challenges, having a knowledgeable attorney on your side can make all the difference.

Historical Background of Sanctuary Cities

The sanctuary movement in the United States began in the 1980s. Several churches and faith-based organizations began advocating after providing shelter to Central American refugees fleeing civil war in their home countries. The U.S. immigration policies at the time denied asylum to refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala. During the 1990s and 2000s, some cities and states began passing local sanctuary policies to limit their forced cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. San Francisco became one of the first sanctuary cities in 1989 with the “City of Refuge” ordinance. In the 2010s, several immigration programs have been met with resistance, including the Secure Communities, executive orders limiting federal funding, and anti-sanctuary laws.

What Is the Legal Basis of Sanctuary Cities?

The 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects states’ rights by preventing the federal government from forcing local jurisdictions to enforce federal laws. This principle is reinforced by common law with Printz v. United States, in which the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot compel state or local officials to enforce federal laws.

The federal government has jurisdiction over immigration enforcement. Local and state governments are not legally required to enforce immigration laws. Most states allow local jurisdictions to set their own policies regarding cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Cities like New York, Los Angeles, and Chicago have long-standing sanctuary policies that prevent local law enforcement from inquiring about immigration status.

Several laws govern immigration. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) creates federal authority over immigration enforcement. State and local governments are prevented from restricting communication between local officials and federal immigration authorities by 8 U.S. Code §1373.

While these immigration laws apply to all states, a few tend to be at the center of this issue: Arizona, California, Florida, New York, and Texas. Texas prohibits sanctuary policies and allows the state to penalize local officials who refuse to cooperate with ICE. Florida requires local law enforcement to comply with ICE detainers. California declared itself a sanctuary state, limiting local cooperation with ICE except in cases involving serious criminal offenses.

Sanctuary Policies and Local Law Enforcement

One of the most common policies between federal and local agencies is ICE detainer requests. These are not warrants. They are a request by ICE to local law enforcement agencies to hold someone for up to 48 hours beyond their locally scheduled release date so that ICE can take custody. Detainer requests are not legally binding and do not require judicial approval. A local agency may not comply with the request for a variety of reasons:

• Courts have ruled that honoring detainer requests without a judicial warrant may lead to unlawful detention.
• Local agencies prioritize violent crime over immigration enforcement.
• Holding individuals for ICE can strain local jail capacity and budgets.

Because of these issues, most sanctuary jurisdictions, including New York City, Los Angeles, and Chicago, do not comply with ICE detainer requests unless backed by a judicial warrant. Some states, like California and Illinois, legally prohibit local agencies from honoring ICE detainers. Other states have laws that support cooperation with ICE. Alabama, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas require cooperation with immigration detainers.

States are also divided on the issue of local law enforcement questioning individuals about their immigration status. Most sanctuary states and cities restrict police from inquiring about immigration status unless required by state or federal law. San Francisco and Denver bar officers from questioning individuals about their immigration status during routine stops. Other states take the opposite approach. Mississippi and Alabama have laws that allow or require officers to check immigration status under certain conditions. Texas allows police officers to question individuals about their immigration status during routine stops.

Sanctuary city policies try to limit ICE collaboration in favor of focusing on investigating crime. They encourage officers to work on building trust with immigration communicates to encourage them to report crimes. If local police departments comply with an ICE detainer request without a judicial warrant, they may face lawsuits for wrongful detention. State governments that oppose sanctuary policies may attempt to penalize local officials or withhold funding.

Federal vs. Local Stances on Immigration

Sanctuary cities and states have long been at odds with the federal government over immigration enforcement. While the federal government seeks to enforce national immigration laws, many local governments prioritize community trust and public safety over assisting federal authorities.

State and Local Immigration Stance

San Francisco is one of the earliest sanctuary cities, and its policies date back to the 1980s. It has been at the center of high-profile immigration-related crimes, sparking national debates. Los Angeles supported these efforts by issuing its own law, Special Order 40, which prevents LAPD officers from questioning individuals about their immigration status. The city continues to reject ICE detainer requests without judicial warrants. New York followed suit and issued Executive Order 124, which barred city employees from reporting individuals’ immigration status to federal authorities. In 2014, Mayor Bill de Blasio signed laws limiting cooperation with ICE unless an individual is convicted of a serious crime.

On a state level, California passed the California Values Act to prohibit state and local law enforcement from using resources to assist ICE. Illinois passed the Trust Act to prevent local law enforcement from detaining individuals based solely on ICE requests. Colorado, Oregon, and Washington also have broad sanctuary policies restricting local cooperation with ICE.

Other states have decided to support federal immigration authorities by requiring local governments to comply with ICE efforts and requests. Alabama, Georgia, Florida, and Texas have passed laws that either require cooperation or prohibit the passing of sanctuary policies.

Federal Response to State Policies

The federal government has used various legal and financial strategies to pressure sanctuary jurisdictions into compliance.

Presidents have passed executive orders to influence state policy formation. During President Donald Trump’s first term, he passed Executive Order 13768, “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States.” It declared sanctuary jurisdictions would cease receiving federal grants. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provided the list of impacted sanctuary cities. Federal courts ruled that withholding funds without congressional approval was unconstitutional.

Also during President Trump’s first administration, the Department of Justice (DOJ) attempted to withhold funds from the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program to sanctuary cities unless they complied with ICE detainer requests. Courts ruled that these funding conditions violated the Constitution. Some states, such as Texas and Florida, passed laws penalizing cities that adopt sanctuary policies by withholding state funding.

Many of the Trump administration’s anti-sanctuary city policies were reversed during President Joe Biden’s tenure. The federal funding restrictions were ended. ICE enforcement priority was scaled back to focus on serious criminal offenders rather than broad immigration enforcement. Sanctuary cities regained autonomy in setting immigration-related policies.

Legal Challenges and Political Impacts

Sanctuary cities have faced continuous legal and political battles due to their policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. These challenges come from federal, state, and even local levels, often resulting in lawsuits, legislative conflicts, and funding disputes. Sanctuary jurisdictions argue that the federal government cannot force them to enforce federal immigration laws, a position that court rulings have generally favored, preventing the federal government from conditioning funding on immigration enforcement cooperation.

The U.S. attorney general plays a key role in enforcing federal immigration laws, often clashing with sanctuary jurisdictions. While federal law is the “supreme law of the land,” courts have ruled that immigration enforcement requires local cooperation. Under President Trump, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) sued sanctuary cities for non-compliance with federal immigration laws. Many of these lawsuits failed due to constitutional protections for state and local governance. Courts in Illinois and Massachusetts upheld sanctuary policies, citing state rights to set local law enforcement priorities. The Trump administration challenged the California Values Act, but it was upheld in federal courts. Texas courts upheld the state’s Anti-Sanctuary Law, setting a precedent for stricter state mandates.

Immigration policies at the local level are heavily influenced by shifting national political priorities. The stance of each presidential administration has led to policy changes that affect sanctuary jurisdictions. Republican attorneys general have sued the federal government over lenient immigration policies. Republican lawmakers in Congress continue to propose legislation to defund sanctuary cities. Democratic leaders argue sanctuary policies improve community safety and protect civil rights. Democratic attorneys general have sued to block federal anti-sanctuary measures. Sanctuary city policies shift depending on which party controls the federal government. Potential future legislation could determine the fate of sanctuary jurisdictions.

Practical Implications for Communities

Sanctuary policies impact public safety and the relationship between law enforcement and immigrant communities. While proponents argue these policies build trust and improve safety, opponents claim they allow dangerous criminals to remain in communities. Some police chiefs support sanctuary policies, arguing that they help maintain trust and encourage cooperation from immigrant communities. In contrast, some sheriffs and law enforcement agencies oppose sanctuary policies, claiming they create enforcement gaps.

Fear of deportation discourages undocumented immigrants from reporting crimes or cooperating as witnesses. Sanctuary policies aim to ensure all residents feel safe engaging with law enforcement. However, many police departments have policies against asking about immigration status to maintain focus on local crime prevention.

Sanctuary policies reflect a larger debate over immigration enforcement and federal-state relations. The existence of sanctuary cities influences national immigration discourse, legal precedents, and enforcement strategies. The sanctuary city debate highlights conflicts between state rights and federal authority over immigration. Policies promoting immigrant integration rather than deportation gain traction in Democratic-led jurisdictions. Republican-led states push for stricter immigration enforcement and anti-sanctuary laws.

Finding Legal Help

The debate over sanctuary cities highlights the ongoing tension between local autonomy and federal immigration enforcement. Regardless of where one stands on the issue, sanctuary city policies influence law enforcement practices, community trust, and the daily lives of immigrants across the country. Whether you are an immigrant, a business owner, or a concerned resident, understanding these policies is essential to knowing your rights. If you need legal guidance on immigration matters, consulting an experienced immigration attorney can help you navigate your rights and options.