Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
This bill bars federal funds for any State or political subdivision that has laws, policies, or procedures preventing timely cooperation with immigration detainers from DHS. It requires jurisdictions to respond to information requests about detained noncitizens and to hold an individual up to 48 hours (excluding weekends/holidays) after an immigration detainer.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and community trust harms
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, targeted substantive policy change that conditions Federal funding on state and local cooperation with DHS immigration detainers.
This bill bars federal funds for any State or political subdivision that has laws, policies, or procedures preventing timely cooperation with immigration detainers from DHS.
It requires jurisdictions to respond to information requests about detained noncitizens and to hold an individual up to 48 hours (excluding weekends/holidays) after an immigration detainer.
Subdivisions within an ineligible State may apply directly to receive federal funds they would otherwise get through the State.
High controversy over immigration detainers, federalism exposure, and likely legal challenges lower prospects despite narrow scope and administrative simplicity.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, targeted substantive policy change that conditions Federal funding on state and local cooperation with DHS immigration detainers. Its core trigger language is explicit, but the bill provides limited implementation detail, lacks fiscal acknowledgment, and provides minimal mechanisms for determinations, appeal, or oversight.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and community trust harms
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and community trust harms
Likely to oppose the bill as an overbroad federal coercion of local authority that risks undermining community trust.
Concerns would focus on civil liberties, racial profiling, and chilling effects on immigrant reporting to police.
They would note the bill does not add judicial oversight to detainers, raising due process worries.
Views the bill as aiming to improve federal-local coordination on immigration enforcement while raising practical and constitutional questions.
Supportive of public-safety motives but wary of funding coercion, litigation risk, and unclear scope of 'Federal funds' affected.
Would favor clarifying safeguards and narrow, evidence-based application.
Likely to strongly support the bill as a tool to compel cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and to reduce 'sanctuary' policies.
Sees withholding federal funds as appropriate leverage to enforce immigration laws and protect public safety.
May still note legal challenges but views the policy goal favorably.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
High controversy over immigration detainers, federalism exposure, and likely legal challenges lower prospects despite narrow scope and administrative simplicity.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize civil liberties and community trust harms
High controversy over immigration detainers, federalism exposure, and likely legal challenges lower prospects despite narrow scope and admi…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear, targeted substantive policy change that conditions Federal funding on state and local cooperation with DHS immigration detainers. Its core trigger languag…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.