What Is a Sanctuary City
A sanctuary city is a state, county, or city that limits how much its own police and agencies help with federal immigration enforcement. Most often that means declining to hold someone in jail past their release date just because ICE asked, or limiting what local staff share with federal agents. Supporters say it keeps local officers focused on local crime and protects the trust people need to call them.
A limit on local cooperation, not a shield from federal law. Sanctuary policies say what local police will not do for ICE. Federal agents still enforce immigration law everywhere.
Key facts
- An ICE detainer is a request to hold someone up to 48 extra hours, not a court order. Counties that held people on detainers have been sued and paid settlements (Center for American Progress).
- The Justice Department’s list names 33 places: 11 states, D.C., 3 counties, and 18 cities (Department of Justice).
- On March 13, 2026, a federal court in Illinois blocked the termination of more than $600 million in CDC grants to four states (Illinois Attorney General).
- A Stanford study found sanctuary policies cut deportations after local arrests by a third, with no measurable effect on crime (Immigration Policy Lab).
If you or someone you know is facing immigration enforcement, you do not have to handle it alone. Call United We Dream’s MigraWatch hotline at 1-844-363-1423 to report ICE or CBP activity and get connected to help. For free or low-cost legal help near you, search the National Immigration Legal Services Directory.
There is no single legal definition of a sanctuary city. The label covers everything from a sheriff who will not hold inmates for ICE without a warrant to a state law that limits what agencies share, which is why lists of sanctuary jurisdictions differ so much from one agency to the next.
What Sanctuary Policies Do and Do Not Do
The most common myth is that a sanctuary city is a place where immigration law stops at the city line. Federal agents operate in every jurisdiction in the country, sanctuary or not. The policy only governs what the local government itself will do.
The last row is a practical reason sheriffs give for these policies. Courts have held that jailing someone past their release on a detainer alone can raise a Fourth Amendment claim. In one case, a U.S. citizen held three days on a detainer in Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, sued and settled for nearly $150,000 (Center for American Progress). Our explainer on ICE arrest powers shows what a detainer allows next to a judge’s warrant.
A judge’s warrant changes the answer. In May and June 2025, the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department handed at least 20 jail inmates to ICE, each on a federal warrant signed by a judge. Sheriff Robert Luna said that is consistent with California law and county policy (ABC7). Sanctuary rules limit requests, not court orders.
Why Victims Stop Calling the Police
Sanctuary policies grew out of what happens when a call to the police can end in deportation. In February 2017, a woman went to the El Paso County courthouse with an advocate from a local domestic violence center to get a protective order against her boyfriend. ICE agents were waiting inside the courtroom and at the exits, and they detained her moments after the judge approved the order (NPR).
ICE said another law enforcement agency had tipped it off and that the woman had been deported six times, and a government affidavit listed earlier arrests. El Paso County Attorney Joanne Bernal said that did not change what the arrest would teach others. “There are going to be a lot of victims who are going to be afraid to come forward for fear of facing the same consequences as she did,” she told NPR.
Survey data shows how common that fear is. In a late-2012 survey of 2,004 Latinos in the counties around Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, and Phoenix, 70% of undocumented immigrants said they were less likely to contact police if they were the victim of a crime (University of Illinois Chicago).
The fear reached past people without papers. In the same survey, 44% of all Latinos, citizens included, said they were less likely to contact police if they were a crime victim because they feared officers would ask about immigration status. A crime nobody reports is a crime nobody investigates, which is the public-safety case sanctuary supporters make.
The Tenth Amendment Basis
The legal foundation for sanctuary policies is the Tenth Amendment and a rule the Supreme Court calls anti-commandeering. The federal government cannot force state or local officers to carry out a federal program. It can ask for help, and it can run its own enforcement, but it cannot draft local police into the job. Refusing to help is different from declaring a federal law void, which our Supremacy Clause explainer sorts out.
The Court set this rule in Printz v. United States in 1997, with Justice Antonin Scalia writing for the majority. The case struck down a federal law that ordered local sheriffs to run background checks for gun purchases. The same principle means Washington cannot order a city’s police to enforce immigration law, which is why an ICE detainer can only ask a jail to hold someone for up to 48 extra hours (Center for American Progress).
One federal law pulls the other way. A 1996 statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1373, bars states and cities from stopping their employees from sharing a person’s immigration status with federal officials. After the Supreme Court applied anti-commandeering to laws that forbid states from acting in Murphy v. NCAA (2018), federal district courts in Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco, and New York held Section 1373 unconstitutional. The Second Circuit had rejected New York City’s challenge to the same information-sharing rules in 1999, so the appeals courts have not settled it (Congressional Research Service).
The anti-commandeering rule still decides cases. On June 22, 2026, Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz of the federal court in Minnesota quashed the Justice Department’s subpoenas of Gov. Tim Walz and other state and local officials. He found the subpoenas were “part of a broader campaign to coerce state and local officials” and were issued “not … to investigate, but to harass, coerce, and retaliate” (ABC News).
Which States Are Sanctuary States?
The Justice Department lists 11 states as sanctuary jurisdictions: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington. The District of Columbia is also on the list, which was last revised October 31, 2025 and was unchanged when we checked it on September 28, 2026 (Department of Justice).
In 6 more states, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico and Pennsylvania, a city or county is on the list but the state is not. Nevada and Baltimore County, Maryland, were on the first list in August 2025 and were removed after signing cooperation agreements.
“Sanctuary state” has no legal definition. The federal list is one government’s judgment, based on criteria such as refusing ICE detainers without a judge’s warrant or limiting what staff share. A peer-reviewed study of state laws counted 11 states and D.C. that passed laws limiting cooperation with immigration authorities between 2009 and 2021 (American Journal of Preventive Medicine).
What the list names in each state
- The state itself is listed (11)
- Only a city is listed (6)
- Removed after an agreement (2)
- Nothing in the state is listed (31)
Being on the list is a federal designation, not a court finding. The District of Columbia is also listed.
Sources: U.S. Department of Justice, Sanctuary Jurisdiction List (October 31, 2025); Fox5 Vegas, DOJ removes Nevada from list (September 26, 2025); U.S. Department of Justice, Baltimore County removed from list. Verified September 28, 2026.
| State | On the list | Detail |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Alaska | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Arizona | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Arkansas | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| California | The state | Also listed: Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Francisco (city and county), and San Diego County. |
| Colorado | The state | Also listed: Denver. |
| Connecticut | The state | The state government is on the list. |
| Delaware | The state | The state government is on the list. |
| Florida | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Georgia | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Hawaii | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Idaho | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Illinois | The state | Also listed: Chicago and Cook County. |
| Indiana | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Iowa | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Kansas | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Kentucky | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Louisiana | A city in the state | New Orleans is on the list; the state is not. |
| Maine | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Maryland | Was listed, then removed | Baltimore County was on the August 2025 list and was removed after agreeing to cooperate with federal enforcement. |
| Massachusetts | A city in the state | Boston is on the list; the state is not. |
| Michigan | A city in the state | East Lansing is on the list; the state is not. |
| Minnesota | The state | The state government is on the list. |
| Mississippi | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Missouri | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Montana | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Nebraska | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Nevada | Was listed, then removed | Nevada was on the August 2025 list and was removed in September 2025 after signing an agreement with federal immigration authorities. |
| New Hampshire | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| New Jersey | A city in the state | Hoboken, Jersey City, Newark, and Paterson are on the list; the state is not. |
| New Mexico | A city in the state | Albuquerque is on the list; the state is not. |
| New York | The state | Also listed: New York City and Rochester. |
| North Carolina | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| North Dakota | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Ohio | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Oklahoma | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Oregon | The state | Also listed: Portland. |
| Pennsylvania | A city in the state | Philadelphia is on the list; the state is not. |
| Rhode Island | The state | The state government is on the list. |
| South Carolina | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| South Dakota | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Tennessee | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Texas | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Utah | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Vermont | The state | The state government is on the list. |
| Virginia | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Washington | The state | Also listed: Seattle. |
| West Virginia | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Wisconsin | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
| Wyoming | Nothing in the state | No state, county, or city here is on the October 2025 list. Local policies can still limit cooperation with ICE. |
Which States Ban Sanctuary Policies?
More states have gone the other way, passing laws that require local police to cooperate with ICE. The same study counted 18 states that enacted these anti-sanctuary laws between 2009 and 2021, most of them in the South (American Journal of Preventive Medicine).
Florida’s 2019 law is a clear example: “A state entity, law enforcement agency, or local governmental entity may not adopt or have in effect a sanctuary policy” (Florida Statutes 908.103). Tennessee made it a felony in 2025 for local officials to vote for a sanctuary policy, until a court-approved settlement in February 2026 struck down the criminal penalty while keeping the ban (Fox 17). New Hampshire’s ban took effect January 1, 2026 (NHPR).
In those states, a city cannot choose a sanctuary policy even if its voters want one. That makes the state, not the city, the level where the question is decided.
Why Counts of Sanctuary Places Differ
The size of any list depends on who drew it. The Department of Homeland Security posted a list naming places in 37 states and D.C. in late May 2025 and took it down on June 1 after the National Sheriffs’ Association and several mayors disputed it (NPR). The Justice Department’s own list started at 35 names in August 2025 and dropped to 33 after Nevada and Baltimore County signed cooperation agreements.
The Funding Fight
The fight over sanctuary policies has become a fight over federal money. It rests on a 1997 ruling and restarted with a January 2025 executive order. Judges blocked the cuts to cities in April and August 2025, after a DHS list lasted three days in May. In 2026 the target widened to whole states, and a March ruling kept their grants flowing.
- Printz sets the anti-commandeering rule The Supreme Court holds Washington cannot force local police to enforce federal law.
- Executive order targets sanctuary funding An order directs agencies to list sanctuary jurisdictions and withhold federal money.
- Judge blocks cuts to sanctuary cities Judge William Orrick bars withholding funds from the cities and counties that sued.
- DHS posts, then pulls, a national list The list comes down within days after sheriffs and mayors dispute it.
- Funding block extended to 34 more places The order grows to cover Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, and others.
- President announces a cutoff to whole states No federal payments from February 1 to states over their sanctuary cities.
- Court keeps $600M in CDC grants flowing An injunction protects California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota.
Sources: Supreme Court; Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse; NPR; Reuters; California and Illinois Attorneys General.
The sanctuary funding fight, 1997 to 2026: 1997: Printz sets the anti-commandeering rule (The Supreme Court holds Washington cannot force local police to enforce federal law.). Jan 2025: Executive order targets sanctuary funding (An order directs agencies to list sanctuary jurisdictions and withhold federal money.). Apr 2025: Judge blocks cuts to sanctuary cities (Judge William Orrick bars withholding funds from the cities and counties that sued.). May 2025: DHS posts, then pulls, a national list (The list comes down within days after sheriffs and mayors dispute it.). Aug 2025: Funding block extended to 34 more places (The order grows to cover Boston, Chicago, Denver, Los Angeles, and others.). Jan 2026: President announces a cutoff to whole states (No federal payments from February 1 to states over their sanctuary cities.). Mar 2026: Court keeps $600M in CDC grants flowing (An injunction protects California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota.).
1997: In Printz v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government cannot command state and local officials to run a federal program, the rule that protects sanctuary policies today.
January 2025: A January 20, 2025 executive order directed the Justice Department and DHS to list sanctuary jurisdictions and to find federal funds that could be withheld from them.
April 2025: On April 24, 2025, Judge William Orrick of the federal court in San Francisco blocked the administration from withholding funds from the cities and counties that sued in City and County of San Francisco v. Trump (Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse).
May 2025: DHS posted a list naming places in 37 states and D.C. in late May 2025 and pulled it on June 1 after local officials, including the National Sheriffs’ Association, disputed it (NPR).
August 2025: On August 22, 2025, Judge Orrick extended the order to 34 more cities and counties, including Boston, Chicago, Denver, and Los Angeles (NPR). The government has appealed to the Ninth Circuit.
January 2026: On January 14, 2026, the president wrote that “no more payments will be made by the federal government to states” over their sanctuary cities, effective February 1 (Reuters via U.S. News). The budget office then directed cuts of more than $600 million in CDC grants to four states.
March 2026: A federal court in Illinois blocked the CDC cuts with a temporary order on February 12, 2026, finding that recent statements “plausibly suggest” the reason was “hostility to what the federal government calls ‘sanctuary jurisdictions’” (California Attorney General). It granted a preliminary injunction on March 13 (Illinois Attorney General).
What the Crime Research Shows
The strongest research finds sanctuary policies change who gets deported without raising crime. The studies measure different things, so each one’s finding is stated as narrowly as the study itself states it.
What the major studies of sanctuary policies found
Source: PNAS via the Immigration Policy Lab; Center for American Progress; University of Illinois Chicago
The Stanford study is the strongest of the three because it compares the same counties before and after a policy change. It found no rise in crime, and no drop either. The county comparison found lower crime in sanctuary counties, but its author notes the data did not allow a before-and-after comparison, so it cannot show the policy caused the difference. Neither study found that sanctuary policies make places more dangerous.
Where the Fight Stands in 2026
The Justice Department has also sued states and cities over their sanctuary laws. Courts dismissed its suits against Illinois on July 25, 2025, New York State on November 17, 2025, Colorado on March 31, 2026, Boston on May 28, 2026, several New Jersey cities on June 24, 2026, and Minnesota on July 20, 2026. The government has appealed the Illinois, New York, Colorado and Boston rulings, and suits against Connecticut, Maryland and other places are pending (Immigrant Legal Resource Center).
Some states that ban sanctuary policies have gone further. Texas’s SB 4 lets state police arrest people suspected of crossing the border illegally. On April 24, 2026, the Fifth Circuit ruled 10-7 that the challengers lacked standing and lifted the order blocking the law, without ruling on whether it is constitutional (Texas Tribune).
Why the Sanctuary Fight Matters to Your City
Sanctuary policies decide whether your local police spend their time on local crime or on federal immigration work. Surveys like the 2013 Insecure Communities study find many immigrants less willing to contact police when officers take part in immigration enforcement.
The funding fight tests whether Washington can cut a city’s or state’s unrelated grants over a local choice the Tenth Amendment protects. Since 2025, courts have blocked the main cutoffs the administration has tried.
The Honest Disagreement
Voters are split on sanctuary policies. Here is how they rated the idea in early 2026.
- Very positive (15%)
- Somewhat positive (18%)
- Neutral (18%)
- Not sure (6%)
- Somewhat negative (7%)
- Very negative (36%)
Source: NBC News poll by Hart Research and Public Opinion Strategies, February 27 to March 3, 2026, 1,000 registered voters, margin of error ±3.1 points.
The case for sanctuary policies rests on local control and community trust. The Vera Institute argues that courts have consistently held the federal government cannot force localities into immigration enforcement and that sanctuary policies have no adverse impact on public safety (Vera Institute). The Center for American Progress adds the cost of lawsuits over detainers.
The case against rests on federal supremacy and public safety. The administration and its supporters argue that immigration is federal law, that local cooperation makes enforcement more effective, and that declining detainers can release people who go on to commit crimes. They point to individual cases as evidence.
Local opinion can differ from the national one. A June 2026 poll found most Philadelphia residents back the city’s sanctuary status as the administration threatens its federal funding, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported. At bottom this is a federalism debate about who controls local police.
Frequently Asked Questions
Which states are sanctuary states?
“Sanctuary state” has no legal definition. The Justice Department lists 11 states as sanctuary jurisdictions: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, plus the District of Columbia, on the list it last revised October 31, 2025.
Which states ban sanctuary policies?
A peer-reviewed study counted 18 states that passed laws between 2009 and 2021 requiring local police to cooperate with ICE, most of them in the South. Florida’s 2019 law bars any state or local agency from adopting a sanctuary policy, and Tennessee and Texas have passed bans of their own.
Can ICE still arrest people in a sanctuary city?
Yes. Federal agents enforce immigration law everywhere, including sanctuary jurisdictions. A sanctuary policy only limits what the local government does to help, such as holding someone in jail for ICE without a warrant.
Do sanctuary cities break federal law?
Declining a detainer does not. A detainer is a request, and the Supreme Court has held that Washington cannot force local officers to carry out a federal program. One statute, 8 U.S.C. § 1373, bars limits on sharing a person’s immigration status; federal district courts in Chicago, Philadelphia, San Francisco and New York held it unconstitutional in 2018, while the Second Circuit upheld it in 1999. Since July 2025, courts have dismissed at least six Justice Department suits against state and city sanctuary laws.
Do sanctuary cities have more crime?
The research says no. A Stanford study found no measurable effect on crime after counties adopted sanctuary policies, and a study of 2,492 counties found lower crime in sanctuary counties, though it compared counties at one point in time rather than before and after a policy.
Can the president cut their funding?
Not so far. Federal judges have blocked the main attempts, including the 2025 cuts to cities and the 2026 cuts to CDC grants for four states. The government appealed the 2025 order to the Ninth Circuit, so the question is not settled.
What you can do
-
Tell your members of Congress to reject funding threats against localities. Cutting a city’s or a state’s unrelated federal grants to force it into immigration work is the coercion courts keep blocking. Ask each of your representatives, on the record, to oppose any bill or budget rider that conditions general federal funding on local immigration cooperation.
-
Defend community-trust policing in your own city. Tell your mayor, city council, and sheriff that you want local police focused on local crime, not acting as immigration agents. Trust policing only works when people are not afraid to call 911.
-
Ask your sheriff about detainer practice. Sheriffs decide whether the county holds people for ICE without a judicial warrant. Ask yours, in writing or at a public meeting, what the policy is and whether it exposes county taxpayers to Fourth Amendment lawsuits.
-
Learn the related fights. Read our DACA explainer on the program protecting people brought here as children, and our Posse Comitatus Act explainer on the limits of using the military for domestic enforcement.
-
Write your representative using the letter below and ask for a clear, on-the-record commitment to oppose federal funding threats over local immigration policy.