Why It Matters

The ongoing battle over who controls immigration enforcement federal authorities or local governments will play out February 24th as the Judiciary Panel introduces a new bill that would curb funding for cities and states that refuse to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers and deportation operations.

Local jurisdictions nationwide face potential loss of federal dollars if they maintain sanctuary policies. Immigrants living in these areas confront uncertainty about police cooperation with ICE. Communities where law enforcement has built trust with immigrant populations could see that eroded.

Republicans argue sanctuary policies "openly defy federal law and endanger the American people." Rep. Jim Jordan has highlighted cases where jurisdictions released individuals despite ICE detainers, leading to subsequent crimes.

But studies published in the National Academy of Sciences show sanctuary policies have no measurable effect on crime rates. Non-detainer counties actually show 35.5 fewer crimes per 10,000 people.

Multiple state attorneys general argue that conditioning federal funding on immigration cooperation violates the Spending Clause. Federal courts have ruled compliance with ICE detainers is voluntary, not mandatory.

Broader Context

Over the past year, House Republicans have waged an aggressive campaign against sanctuary jurisdictions. Rep. Jim Jordan convened hearings where sanctuary city mayors were grilled about policies obstructing federal immigration enforcement. The Oversight Committee has also placed Democratic governors from Minnesota, Illinois, and New York in the "hotseat".

Rep. Chip Roy (R-TX-21) introduced legislation to strip federal funds from non-compliant cities, which he described as containing "the strictest penalties to date on sanctuary jurisdictions." Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA-48) reintroduced the "Sanctuary City Accountability Act," creating a private right of action allowing citizens harmed by undocumented immigrants to sue sanctuary jurisdictions.

The House Judiciary Committee previously held two related hearings: "Restoring Immigration Enforcement in America" in January 2025, and "Sanctuary Jurisdictions: Magnet for Migrants, Cover for Criminals" in April 2025.

Between The Lines

Committee Chair: Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH-4) leads the House Judiciary Committee and has been the principal architect of the anti-sanctuary campaign.

Jordan has emphasized that ICE detainers are critical enforcement tools, highlighting a Denver case involving a gang member released despite an ICE detainer. He noted an officer was subsequently assaulted when the individual was re-arrested.

Rep. Darrell Issa argues his legislation would "unshackle victims of sanctuary policies to demand accountability."

Rep. Thomas P. Tiffany (R-WI-7) has argued jurisdictions "must lose all federal funding" for defying immigration law, celebrating a Justice Department decision pausing funding.

Competitive Landscape

Organizations lobbying on sanctuary policy issues have significantly increased activity throughout 2025.

There are organization such as the National Association of Police Organizations that supports stricter enforcement. It has maintained consistent lobbying presence, explicitly supporting the "Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act" and expanded DHS 287(g) agreements.

On the other side has been a variety of voices. *
The Service Employees International Union retained lobbying firm NVG LLC throughout 2025, targeting "issues relating to immigration enforcement and immigration enforcement funding." America’s Voice has actively lobbied against restrictive measures, specifically targeting H.R. 32 – No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act. And municpalities such as the Hayward, California has engaged lobbyists on "immigration enforcement cooperation requirements, including use and receipt of federal funds," demonstrating direct municipal concerns about financial threats.

The Bottom Line

The February 24, 2026 hearing represents the legislative endpoint of a sustained Republican campaign to override local immigration enforcement decisions. The debate reveals a stark divide between law enforcement groups and organized labor, with constitutional questions about federal funding conditions and local autonomy at stake. Republicans have already introduced complementary legislation targeting sanctuary jurisdictions through funding restrictions, private liability, and state law overrides, setting up a contentious hearing with sharp disputes over public safety versus local discretion.

Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article