# Sanctuary Jurisdiction A state or locality that limits its own officers' **voluntary** cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement. Typical measures: - declining ICE detainer requests unless they come with a judicial warrant, - refusing to share custody and release dates, and - barring local police from asking about immigration status. The term has no legal definition. "Sanctuary" is a political label, and the administration's own lists apply it to jurisdictions whose policies differ widely. ## The legal footing The constitutional basis is the [[Anti-Commandeering Doctrine]], not any claimed state power over immigration. Immigration classification is a federal field ([[Arizona v. United States]]). But under [[Printz v. United States]] (1997) and [[Murphy v. NCAA]] (2018), Washington cannot conscript state and local officers to carry out a federal program. A detainer is a **request**. Declining it is a refusal to volunteer, not obstruction. The narrow federal statute actually in play is **8 U.S.C. § 1373**. It bars localities from restricting their officers from *sharing citizenship or immigration-status information* with federal authorities. It says nothing about holding people on detainers or handing over release dates, and after *Murphy* several courts have held it unenforceable against states. ## The two federal levers, and how both fared in 2025–2026 **Lever 1: money.** Executive Orders 14159 and 14218 (January and February 2025) and Executive Order 14287 (April 28, 2025) told agencies to cut grants to sanctuary jurisdictions. The Justice Department published a list of 13 states, 4 counties and 18 cities on August 5, 2025. In *San Francisco v. Trump*, a federal court in San Francisco enjoined the funding cutoffs on April 24, 2025, and the injunctions remain in force on appeal to the Ninth Circuit. This matches the first-term record: courts keep holding that the executive cannot attach conditions to grants that Congress did not write ([[Spending Clause]]). **Lever 2: lawsuits.** Starting in February 2025 the Justice Department sued sanctuary jurisdictions directly, in at least 27 cases by mid-2026. The early results run almost entirely one way: | Defendant | Filed | Outcome | |---|---|---| | Illinois, Chicago, Cook County | Feb 2025 | Dismissed July 25, 2025; on appeal | | New York (Green Light law) | Feb 2025 | Dismissed Dec 23, 2025; on appeal | | Colorado and Denver | May 2025 | Dismissed Mar 31, 2026: Congress cannot "compel states to implement federal regulatory programs" | | Boston | Sept 2025 | Dismissed May 28, 2026 for lack of standing | | Minnesota, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Hennepin County | Sept 2025 | **Dismissed July 2026** by Chief Judge Eric Tostrud, a Trump appointee, on anti-commandeering grounds | | Newark, Jersey City, Paterson, Hoboken | May 2025 | Dismissed June 24, 2026 for lack of standing | A second wave filed in 2026 targets newer state laws: mask bans and identification requirements for federal agents, limits on driver's-license data sharing, and state civil-rights causes of action against federal officers. Those cases are still pending. ## Why the right keeps losing this fight The doctrine that protects sanctuary policies is a conservative one. *Printz* was written by Justice Scalia to protect local sheriffs from the Brady Act's background-check mandate. *Murphy* was a states'-rights win for sports betting. The same rule protects red-state sheriffs from federal gun laws and blue-state cities from ICE. The administration is asking courts to create an exception for immigration, and so far judges appointed by both parties have refused. The Minnesota dismissal was written by a Trump appointee. ## Where the leverage runs out Anti-commandeering is a shield, not a sword. It lets a state decline to help. It does not let a state stop federal enforcement: Minnesota lost its bid to halt [[Operation Metro Surge]]. And it does not make other states help either: Texas declined to extradite the ICE officer Minnesota had charged ([[Christian Castro]]). The sanctuary fight is a standoff: each side keeps its own officers, and neither can direct the other's. ## See also - [[Anti-Commandeering Doctrine]] · [[Printz v. United States]] · [[Murphy v. NCAA]] · [[Tenth Amendment]] - [[Arizona v. United States]] · [[Federal Preemption]] · [[Supremacy Clause]] · [[Federalism Powers Crosswalk]] - [[Spending Clause]] · [[Operation Metro Surge]] · [[Immigration Removal Pipeline]] · [[Fight Against Federal Overreach]] - [[Keith Ellison]] · [[Mary Moriarty]] · [[Christian Castro]]