Why it Matters
The fight over sanctuary city policy in the Senate is escalating. On March 25, 2026, the Senate Judiciary Committee's Constitution Subcommittee will hold a sanctuary cities hearing titled "Protecting American Citizenship, Focusing on Federalism, Sanctuary Cities, and the Rule of Law" — the second Senate hearing on the topic in just two weeks. The session arrives as Republican lawmakers are advancing multiple bills to criminalize local officials who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, the Trump administration is battling courts over funding cuts to sanctuary jurisdictions, and the constitutional boundaries between state and federal power are being tested in real time.
This isn't a one-off oversight exercise. It's part of a coordinated push across multiple Senate committees to build the legislative and political case against sanctuary cities ahead of what could be landmark legislation redefining how the federal government compels local cooperation on immigration.
A Legislative Blitz on Sanctuary Cities
The protecting American citizenship hearing lands in the middle of a burst of anti-sanctuary legislative activity.
On March 18, Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) announced new legislation targeting sanctuary cities, framing the effort as "putting Americans first." That came just days after the Senate Budget Committee held its own hearing on March 10 — titled "Sanctuary Cities: The Cost of Undermining Law and Order" — where senators clashed sharply over local jurisdictions' refusal to honor ICE detainer requests.
At that earlier hearing, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) promoted his End Sanctuary Cities Act of 2026, which would impose criminal penalties on state and local officials who ignore DHS detainer requests. Graham said officials who don't cooperate should "feel the pain, not just the public."
Democrats pushed back. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) defended sanctuary policies, citing research suggesting those jurisdictions perform better on public safety metrics and invoking 10th Amendment protections against federal commandeering of local governments.
The March 25 hearing before the Constitution Subcommittee is positioned to dig deeper into the federalism and rule of law questions that the Budget Committee hearing surfaced but didn't resolve.
The Courts Are Already Engaged
The sanctuary cities federal law debate in 2026 has been shaped as much by litigation as by legislation.
The Trump administration announced in January 2026 that it would begin cutting federal funding to sanctuary cities and states, with a February 1 start date. Courts moved quickly to block those efforts. A California federal judge, U.S. District Judge William Orrick, issued a preliminary injunction, ruling the funding cuts were "coercive" and "intended to commandeer local officials into enforcing federal immigration practices."
States and cities have argued the cuts violate the 10th Amendment — the same constitutional provision that sits at the center of the subcommittee's jurisdiction and the hearing's stated focus on federalism.
The Cato Institute weighed in with a February commentary by legal scholar Ilya Somin, who argued that "refusing to cooperate with federal immigration authorities is constitutionally protected and morally just" — a libertarian-conservative position that complicates the GOP's framing of the issue as a simple law-and-order question.
Lobbying Groups Are Mobilized on Both Sides
Federal lobbying disclosures from the past year show sustained spending by organizations with direct stakes in the hearing's outcome.
The Service Employees International Union filed lobbying disclosures in both the third and fourth quarters of 2025, spending $90,000 each quarter on issues including immigration enforcement and sanctuary city policy. America's Voice, a pro-immigration reform group, reported $60,000 in first quarter 2025 lobbying that explicitly referenced sanctuary city policies. The ACLU reported $50,000 in third quarter 2025 lobbying on related issues.
On the enforcement side, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association filed disclosures across three consecutive quarters in 2025 — $40,000 each in the second, third, and fourth quarters — consistently lobbying on federal immigration enforcement and state-federal coordination.
The spending patterns reflect the depth of organized interest on both sides of the sanctuary cities federal law debate heading into 2026.
The Subcommittee and What to Expect
The hearing will be chaired by Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-MO), who leads the Constitution Subcommittee. Sen. Peter Welch (D-VT) serves as ranking member. The full subcommittee roster includes prominent voices on immigration from both parties: Sens. Ted Cruz (R-TX), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Josh Hawley (R-MO) on the Republican side, and Sens. Adam Schiff (D-CA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Alex Padilla (D-CA) for Democrats.
The hearing is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. in 226 Dirksen Senate Office Building. Witnesses have not yet been announced.
The Senate Judiciary Committee sanctuary cities hearing is the latest — and likely not the last — venue for a confrontation that is simultaneously playing out in Congress, the courts, and the executive branch. The core question the subcommittee is grappling with — whether the Constitution permits the federal government to force local governments to enforce immigration law — has no settled answer, and the legislative proposals on the table would push the boundaries further than any previous effort.
Access the Legis1 platform for comprehensive political news, data, and insights.
Spot something wrong? Report an issue with this article