House Panel Debates Sanctuary Policies and Public Safety

The Justice Department sued Hoboken, Jersey City, Newark and Paterson, New Jersey, in May 2025, challenging municipal policies restricting local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. A federal judge dismissed the case without prejudice on June 24, finding that the federal government had not established standing because New Jersey's statewide Immigrant Trust Directive independently imposed many of the same restrictions. The ruling did not decide the legality of the cities' policies on the merits.

The debate also includes H.R. 7640, the Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act, introduced by Subcommittee Chair Tom McClintock (R-CA) on Feb. 23. The legislation would establish federal requirements for state and local cooperation with immigration enforcement, restrict certain federal law enforcement grants to jurisdictions deemed noncompliant and create a private right of action in specified circumstances involving crimes committed after a jurisdiction declined to honor an immigration detainer.

The House Judiciary Committee approved H.R. 7640, as amended, by a 22-11 vote on March 5. The committee formally reported the legislation on March 12.

The Congressional Research Service identified 13 states and 225 localities as having sanctuary policies as of January 2025, citing a count by the Center for Immigration Studies. CRS cautioned that there is no agreed-upon legal definition of a sanctuary jurisdiction and that any count is imprecise because jurisdictions regularly change their policies.

What They're Saying

McClintock argued that sanctuary policies interfere with federal immigration enforcement and create public-safety risks. He cited the Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act as a legislative response, saying the measure would preempt certain restrictions on cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, protect officers cooperating with federal authorities, redirect specified federal law enforcement grants and create a private right of action in certain cases.

Ranking Member Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) argued that requiring state and local law enforcement agencies to participate in federal immigration enforcement diverts resources from local public-safety responsibilities and can make immigrant communities less willing to cooperate with police. She also criticized the Trump administration's broader immigration-enforcement campaign.

David Bier, director of immigration studies at the Cato Institute, testified that restrictions on local participation in immigration enforcement do not increase crime. His written testimony cited 12 studies that he said found no increase in crime associated with limits on local participation in immigration enforcement. Bier also argued that Congress should require the Department of Homeland Security to focus enforcement resources on people who pose public-safety threats.

Jeffrey Gahler, sheriff of Harford County, Maryland, argued that Maryland's Community Trust Act restricts cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities and could require jails to release people sought by ICE. Gahler is the lead plaintiff among 17 Maryland sheriffs challenging the law in federal court.

The other witnesses were Patricia Fox, whose daughter Carissa "Luu" Aspnes was permanently disabled after a hit-and-run crash in Colorado involving an undocumented Venezuelan immigrant, and Marcus Coleman, whose daughter Dalilah was permanently disabled after a multivehicle crash involving an undocumented immigrant.

Political Stakes

The hearing highlighted competing views over the relationship between federal immigration enforcement and state and local policing. Republicans on the subcommittee argued that jurisdictions should cooperate with ICE detainers and information requests and pointed to crimes involving undocumented immigrants as evidence of the risks they associate with sanctuary policies.

Jayapal and other Democrats argued that local law enforcement resources should remain focused on criminal enforcement rather than federal civil immigration enforcement. Supporters of sanctuary policies also argue that limiting local participation in immigration enforcement can encourage immigrants to report crimes and cooperate with police.

CRS has noted that jurisdictions adopt such policies for different reasons, including concerns about legal liability from immigration detainers, limited local resources, family separation and removals of immigrants with minor or no criminal records.

The Justice Department has separately opened a civil rights investigation into whether Fairfax County, Virginia, Commonwealth's Attorney Steve Descano's office discriminated against U.S. citizens through its plea bargaining, charging and sentencing policies involving undocumented defendants. The department said on May 6 that it had reached no conclusions about the allegations.

The relationship between sanctuary policies and crime remains disputed. Bier cited academic research that he said does not show increased crime from policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, while Gahler and Republican members emphasized individual cases in which undocumented immigrants were accused or convicted of crimes after interactions with local authorities.

The term "sanctuary jurisdiction" itself also has no uniform legal definition. CRS notes that jurisdictions differ significantly in how they restrict cooperation with ICE, including policies governing information sharing, immigration detainers and participation in federal immigration-enforcement programs.

Those distinctions complicate comparisons among jurisdictions and broad claims about the effects of sanctuary policies nationwide.

The Bottom Line

H.R. 7640 has been reported by the House Judiciary Committee and placed on the Union Calendar but has not received a House floor vote.

Litigation over state and local immigration policies is also continuing. Gahler and 16 other Maryland sheriffs are challenging Maryland's Community Trust Act, while the Justice Department has filed a separate federal lawsuit challenging the same law.

The hearing record also remained open for members to submit additional materials following the Sept. 1 proceeding.

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

Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article