HR-10222-119
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Sponsored by Troy Downing (R-MT)
What it does
This bill would make any "sanctuary jurisdiction" ineligible for grant funds administered by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. A jurisdiction qualifies as a sanctuary jurisdiction if it has a law or policy limiting the sharing of immigration status information with other government agencies, or limiting compliance with federal immigration detainer requests. The restriction would apply to grants distributed starting 180 days after enactment, with HUD consulting DHS to identify which jurisdictions qualify.
Who benefits
Jurisdictions that comply with federal immigration detainer requests and share immigration status data may see relatively more competitive access to HUD funds as sanctuary jurisdictions are excluded from a portion of the funding pool. Federal immigration enforcement agencies (DHS) gain leverage to encourage local cooperation. Advocates for stricter immigration enforcement may see the bill as furthering that goal.
Who is hurt
Residents of sanctuary jurisdictions who rely on HUD-funded programs such as public housing, homelessness assistance, community development block grants, and rental assistance could lose access to that funding, regardless of their own immigration status. Local governments in sanctuary jurisdictions would face funding cuts and pressure to change their policies. Low-income families, the homeless, and nonprofit housing providers in affected cities and counties would bear indirect costs.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that jurisdictions receiving federal housing dollars should cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, and that withholding funds is a legitimate way to encourage compliance with lawful detainer requests. They contend that sanctuary policies obstruct federal immigration law and that conditioning discretionary grants on cooperation is a reasonable use of Congress's spending power, similar to other federal funding conditions tied to policy compliance.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that cutting off HUD housing funds punishes low-income residents and homeless populations who have no role in local immigration policy decisions, harming vulnerable people to pressure local governments. They contend that under Arizona v. United States, immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and that using housing aid as leverage over local policy choices could raise anti-commandeering concerns similar to those in Murphy v. NCAA and NFIB v. Sebelius, since it may coerce rather than merely encourage local compliance.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad spending power under Article I, Section 8, but conditions on federal funds must be unambiguous and not unduly coercive, per South Dakota v. Dole (1987) and the anti-commandeering principle reinforced in Murphy v. NCAA (2018); courts would likely assess whether denying HUD funds crosses from a persuasive condition into unconstitutional coercion of state and local governments, an issue not yet definitively resolved for immigration-related funding conditions.
Checks and balances
Congress would set the funding condition and define "sanctuary jurisdiction," while HUD and DHS jointly determine which jurisdictions are excluded, giving the executive branch significant discretion in enforcement that could face judicial review under the Spending Clause and anti-commandeering doctrine.
Historical precedent
Similar sanctuary-city funding conditions have been attempted before, including a 2017 executive order and Department of Justice grant conditions tied to Byrne JAG funds, both of which faced legal challenges and mixed rulings in federal courts.