Received in the Senate and Read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
The bill prohibits the District of Columbia from maintaining any statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that bars or limits District officials or entities from sharing information about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status with federal, state, or local governments, and requires compliance with Department of Homeland Security requests under INA sections 236 and 287 to honor detainers or provide notice of releases.
Local control and community trust vs. federal law and public safety
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a narrow substantive policy change (prohibiting District of Columbia sanctuary policies and requiring cooperation with specified INA provisions) but provides minimal implementation, enforcement, fiscal, or oversight detail.
The bill prohibits the District of Columbia from maintaining any statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that bars or limits District officials or entities from sharing information about an individual’s citizenship or immigration status with federal, state, or local governments, and requires compliance with Department of Homeland Security requests under INA sections 236 and 287 to honor detainers or provide notice of releases.
House approval raises baseline chances, but high controversy, federalism objections, and Senate procedural dynamics lower overall probability.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a narrow substantive policy change (prohibiting District of Columbia sanctuary policies and requiring cooperation with specified INA provisions) but provides minimal implementation, enforcement, fiscal, or oversight detail.
Local control and community trust vs. federal law and public safety
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Local control and community trust vs. federal law and public safety
Likely to oppose the bill as an overreach that undermines local self-governance and community trust.
Concerns would focus on civil‑rights, public‑safety tradeoffs, and impacts on immigrant willingness to contact police or access services.
Mixed but cautiously receptive: supports rule‑of‑law coordination while wanting procedural safeguards and fiscal clarity.
Sees practical value in cooperation but worries about legal liability, costs, and community trust effects.
Likely strongly supportive, viewing the bill as restoring compliance with federal law and preventing sanctuary policies.
Emphasizes public safety and federal supremacy over local sanctuary decisions.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
House approval raises baseline chances, but high controversy, federalism objections, and Senate procedural dynamics lower overall probability.
The House passed this bill. It now goes to the other chamber, and eventually to the President for signature.
The final vote on whether the bill becomes law (pending the other chamber and the President).
The attempt to send the bill back to committee failed. The bill continues moving forward.
A motion to recommit sends a bill back to committee, often as a last-ditch attempt to stop it.
Local control and community trust vs. federal law and public safety
House approval raises baseline chances, but high controversy, federalism objections, and Senate procedural dynamics lower overall probabili…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly defines a narrow substantive policy change (prohibiting District of Columbia sanctuary policies and requiring cooperation with specified INA provisions) but p…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.