HR-3881-119
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, and Financial Services, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
What it does
This bill would prohibit state and local governments defined as "sanctuary jurisdictions" from receiving federal grants under certain Economic Development Assistance Programs and the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. A jurisdiction would be classified as a sanctuary jurisdiction if it has any law, policy, or practice that restricts sharing immigration status information with other government entities or that prevents compliance with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detainer or release notification requests. The bill would also designate state and local governments as agents of DHS when complying with detainers, granting them DHS-level authority and limiting their legal liability for doing so.
Who benefits
Federal immigration enforcement agencies (DHS/ICE), which would gain greater cooperation from local law enforcement. Communities where supporters argue increased enforcement reduces crime. Businesses and residents in jurisdictions that comply with detainers, who would continue receiving federal grant funding uninterrupted. Victims' advocacy groups that argue non-cooperation policies have enabled repeat offenses by individuals with prior removal orders.
Who is hurt
Unauthorized immigrants in affected jurisdictions, who may face increased detention and removal risk. Residents of sanctuary jurisdictions — including U.S. citizens — who rely on CDBG-funded programs such as affordable housing, infrastructure improvements, and community services. Local governments that would lose significant federal funding if they maintain current policies. Immigrant communities broadly, including legal residents, who may be less likely to report crimes or cooperate with local police if they fear immigration consequences. Small businesses and nonprofits in affected cities that depend on CDBG or EDA grant funding.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that sanctuary policies obstruct federal law and endanger public safety by releasing individuals with criminal records or active removal orders back into communities instead of transferring them to ICE custody. They contend that federal grant funding is a legitimate policy lever — the Supreme Court has upheld conditions on federal spending — and that jurisdictions choosing to receive federal dollars should be required to cooperate with federal immigration law. They further argue that designating local officers as DHS agents when complying with detainers resolves a key legal barrier that has discouraged cooperation.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that withholding CDBG and EDA funds punishes entire communities — including vulnerable residents who depend on housing and economic development programs — for their local government's immigration policies, making the funding condition coercive rather than merely conditional under South Dakota v. Dole. They contend that compelling local governments to enforce federal immigration law raises serious anti-commandeering concerns under the Tenth Amendment, and that research on sanctuary policies and crime rates does not consistently show that non-cooperation increases public safety risk. They also argue that broad detainer compliance requirements may conflict with Zadvydas v. Davis due process protections for individuals held beyond lawful removal periods.
Constitutional context
The Spending Clause (Art. I, §8) permits Congress to attach conditions to federal grants, but South Dakota v. Dole (1987) requires those conditions to be related to the federal interest and not unduly coercive. The Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine, reinforced in Murphy v. NCAA (2018), limits the federal government's ability to compel state and local governments to enforce federal law. Arizona v. United States (2012) affirmed federal supremacy in immigration but also limited state and local enforcement roles; United States v. Texas (2023) further constrained states' ability to challenge federal enforcement priorities.
Checks and balances
The executive branch (DHS) gains expanded cooperation from local law enforcement; checks include judicial review of the spending conditions under the Spending Clause coercion doctrine, Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering challenges, and congressional oversight of DHS detainer practices.
Historical precedent
The Trump administration's 2017 executive order withholding federal funds from sanctuary cities was largely blocked by federal courts on Spending Clause and separation of powers grounds in City of Chicago v. Sessions (7th Cir. 2018) and related cases.