S-114-119
Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Sponsored by Marsha Blackburn (R-TN)
What it does
The bill would state that state and local police have inherent authority to investigate, arrest, detain, and transfer unauthorized immigrants to federal custody during routine duties. Starting 1 year after enactment, states or localities with policies barring cooperation with federal immigration enforcement would lose funds under the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. It would also require states and localities to send DHS information on apprehended immigrants believed to be in violation, with cost reimbursement, and would require DHS to build or acquire 20 new detention facilities. It would further direct DHS to take custody of such immigrants within 48 hours of a state request, authorize grants to cooperating agencies, expand the Institutional Removal Program, allow state holds of up to 14 days after a sentence ends, limit civil-rights damage claims against cooperating agencies, and authorize "such sums as may be necessary" each year.
Who benefits
State and local police agencies that choose to assist, which would gain grants, equipment funding, training materials, reimbursement for detention and transport costs, and liability protection. Federal immigration officials who would gain more local partners, jail-based identification of removable immigrants, and more detention capacity. States that cooperate, which would receive funds reallocated from non-cooperating jurisdictions. Residents who favor stricter immigration enforcement.
Who is hurt
Sanctuary-style states and localities, which would lose State Criminal Alien Assistance Program funds and may face added reporting duties. Unauthorized immigrants, including long-term residents and those with minor violations, who may face more arrests, holds of up to 14 days, and detention. Individuals alleging civil-rights violations by local agencies, who would lose access to money damages from the agency. Communities where immigrants may become less willing to contact police, and taxpayers who would fund open-ended appropriations.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue that federal immigration enforcement cannot succeed without local police, who make millions of arrests and see removable people in their jails. They contend the bill gives clear legal footing to cooperation, reimburses localities for costs, adds detention space, and ties existing federal criminal-alien funds to cooperation, so that jurisdictions refusing to help do not receive money meant to offset such costs.
Opponents argue
Opponents argue that the bill pressures states and cities to take on federal duties by withholding existing funds, and that it limits civil-rights damage claims against local agencies. They contend it could erode trust between immigrant communities and police, risk wrongful detentions of citizens and lawful residents, and commit open-ended sums to 20 new detention facilities without a cost estimate or spending cap.
Constitutional context
Congress holds broad power over immigration under the Naturalization Clause, but the Tenth Amendment anti-commandeering rule (Printz v. United States; Murphy v. NCAA) limits compelling states to enforce federal law, so the funding-condition design raises Spending Clause questions under South Dakota v. Dole and NFIB v. Sebelius. The bill's claim that state authority was never preempted also sits in tension with Arizona v. United States (2012), which held most state immigration enforcement schemes preempted, and 14-day post-sentence holds raise Fourth Amendment questions.
Checks and balances
The bill would expand executive branch (DHS) detention and enforcement capacity and shift some enforcement to states, while Congress retains appropriations control and GAO audits, and courts could review funding conditions, preemption, and detention practices.
Historical precedent
Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (1996) and earlier proposals such as the CLEAR Act of 2003 and 2005 sought similar state and local enforcement roles, and the Trump administration's 2017 effort to condition Byrne JAG grants on cooperation drew court challenges.