HR-7982-119
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by LaMonica McIver (D-NJ)
What it does
This bill would prohibit entities that receive specific federal funds under the State Homeland Security Grant Program (as authorized under Public Law 119-21) from using those funds to conduct civil immigration enforcement or to participate in 287(g) immigration enforcement partnerships with federal authorities. The restriction would apply only during a defined 38-day window — from June 11 to July 19, 2026 — which corresponds to the dates of the FIFA World Cup matches hosted in the United States. Exceptions would be permitted for exigent circumstances, including imminent threats to life, national security risks, active hot pursuits, or imminent destruction of criminal evidence.
Who benefits
Foreign nationals attending or traveling to the United States for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, including those who may be present without legal authorization. International tourists and visitors broadly, who may feel safer traveling to the U.S. during the event. Host cities and their local economies, which stand to benefit from increased tourism and spending. FIFA and event organizers, who have expressed concerns about immigration enforcement chilling attendance. Local law enforcement agencies that prefer to focus resources on event security rather than civil immigration enforcement. Businesses in the hospitality, travel, and retail sectors in host cities.
Who is hurt
Federal immigration enforcement agencies (ICE, CBP) that would lose a category of state and local partners during the covered period. Communities where individuals with civil immigration violations reside, if opponents' public safety arguments are credited. State and local law enforcement agencies that currently participate in 287(g) programs and would be restricted in how they use these specific grant funds. Taxpayers who fund the grant program, if the restriction is viewed as reducing the return on that federal spending. Individuals or groups who believe consistent immigration enforcement deters unauthorized entry.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that the World Cup will bring an estimated 1.5 million international visitors to the United States, and that aggressive civil immigration enforcement during the event could deter attendance, damage the country's international reputation, and undermine the economic benefits — projected in the billions — that host cities expect. They contend that the bill is narrowly tailored: it applies only to a specific 38-day window, covers only specific grant-funded activities, and preserves full enforcement authority for genuine public safety emergencies. They further argue that local law enforcement resources should be focused on event security, not civil immigration matters, during a high-profile international gathering.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill creates a temporary safe harbor from immigration enforcement based on a sporting event, effectively signaling that civil immigration law will not be enforced for a defined period — which could encourage unauthorized entry or overstays timed to the event. They contend that immigration enforcement is a continuous federal responsibility and that selectively suspending it for a commercial event sets a troubling precedent for future carve-outs. They also argue that restricting how grant recipients use federal funds may interfere with the executive branch's constitutional authority to enforce federal immigration law uniformly, raising separation-of-powers concerns.
Constitutional context
Congress has broad authority over immigration under the Naturalization Clause (Art. I, §8, cl. 4) and the Necessary and Proper Clause, and may attach conditions to federal grants under its spending power. However, the anti-commandeering doctrine (Tenth Amendment) and Arizona v. United States (2012) establish that while states cannot be compelled to enforce federal immigration law, Congress may use funding conditions to shape how grant recipients operate — raising the question of whether this restriction is a permissible condition or an unconstitutional coercion of state actors.
Checks and balances
Congress would restrict how executive-branch grant funds are used by state and local recipients, limiting the executive's ability to leverage those grants for immigration enforcement partnerships during the covered period; the executive branch retains all direct federal enforcement authority and the exigent-circumstances exception preserves emergency powers.
Historical precedent
No directly analogous federal legislation has been enacted that suspends immigration enforcement activity tied to a specific international sporting event; the use of grant conditions to limit state participation in immigration enforcement has been litigated in the context of sanctuary city policies, but no clear statutory precedent for an event-specific enforcement pause exists.