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 restricts District officials from sharing immigration or citizenship status information with federal, state, or local governments, or from complying with Department of Homeland Security detainer or notification requests under INA sections 236 or 287. An exception allows District policies to refrain from sharing information or honoring detainers when the individual is a crime victim or witness.
Progressives emphasize community trust and civil-rights harms
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive statute that clearly states its purpose and the prohibited categories of District policies, with one narrow exception for victims and witnesses.
The bill prohibits the District of Columbia from maintaining any statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that bars or restricts District officials from sharing immigration or citizenship status information with federal, state, or local governments, or from complying with Department of Homeland Security detainer or notification requests under INA sections 236 or 287.
An exception allows District policies to refrain from sharing information or honoring detainers when the individual is a crime victim or witness.
The bill directs DC to permit information exchange and cooperation with federal immigration enforcement absent that limited exception.
Narrow but highly partisan topic with limited compromise features; Senate procedural hurdles and likely opposition lower chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive statute that clearly states its purpose and the prohibited categories of District policies, with one narrow exception for victims and witnesses. It lacks key implementation and accountability elements typically expected for a federal statute that constrains a local government's policies.
Progressives emphasize community trust and civil-rights harms
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize community trust and civil-rights harms
Likely to view the bill as federal overreach into local governance and immigrant-protection policies.
They will worry it undermines trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, reducing crime reporting and harming civil liberties.
They may acknowledge the limited victim-witness exception but find it inadequate to prevent chilling effects.
A centrist would see the bill as enforcing federal authority over immigration but would be concerned about impacts on public safety and local autonomy.
They will weigh benefits of cooperation against potential harms to community trust and want clearer definitions, safeguards, and fiscal clarity.
The victim-witness exception is a positive but may need expansion and procedural clarity.
Likely to support the bill as restoring compliance with federal immigration statutes and preventing D.C. from obstructing enforcement.
They will view the limitation on 'sanctuary' policies as appropriate, and see the victim-witness exception as a reasonable narrow carve-out.
They may push for uncompromising enforcement and minimal local discretion.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but highly partisan topic with limited compromise features; Senate procedural hurdles and likely opposition lower chances.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize community trust and civil-rights harms
Narrow but highly partisan topic with limited compromise features; Senate procedural hurdles and likely opposition lower chances.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a straightforward substantive statute that clearly states its purpose and the prohibited categories of District policies, with one narrow exception for victims and…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.