The Federal Prohibition on Sanctuary Cities and Mandatory Immigration Enforcement Act of 2026

Liberty
1

THE FEDERAL PROHIBITION ON SANCTUARY CITIES AND MANDATORY IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACT of 2026

Table of Contents

Section 1. Short Title and Retroactive Applicability

(a) Short Title.
This Act may be cited as the “Federal Prohibition on Sanctuary Cities and Mandatory Immigration Enforcement Act of AD 2026.”

(b) Applicability.
This Act governs all sanctuary policies, non-cooperation practices, and any obstruction of federal immigration enforcement efforts.

© Retroactive Applicability.
This Act applies retroactively to all sanctuary policies, non‑cooperation practices, and related actions occurring on or after January 1, AD 2000, including all failures to honor detainers, failures to share information, and refusals to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.

(d) Continuing Violations.
Any ongoing refusal to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement constitutes a continuing violation subject to enforcement under this Act.

Section 2. Congressional Findings

Congress finds that:

  1. The Constitution grants the federal government exclusive authority over immigration and naturalization (Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387).

  2. Sanctuary jurisdictions obstruct federal immigration enforcement by refusing to honor lawful detainer requests, restricting information‑sharing, or prohibiting cooperation with federal authorities.

  3. These policies compromise public safety, erode national sovereignty, and lead to inconsistent enforcement across the United States.

  4. Congress has the authority to ensure uniform enforcement of federal immigration law and to prohibit state or local interference (INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919).

  5. Sanctuary policies violate the Supremacy Clause by nullifying or obstructing federal law.

  6. Congress has a compelling interest in ensuring that all jurisdictions cooperate fully with federal immigration authorities.

Section 3. Constitutional Authority

This Act is enacted pursuant to:

1. Article I, Section 8

Granting Congress authority over naturalization and immigration.

2. The Supremacy Clause (Article VI)

Establishing federal immigration law as supreme over conflicting state or local policies.

3. The Commerce Clause

Authorizing Congress to regulate the movement of persons across state and national borders.

4. The Spending Clause

Authorizing Congress to condition federal funds on compliance with federal immigration enforcement (South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203).

5. The Necessary and Proper Clause

Authorizing Congress to enact laws essential to executing federal immigration authority.

6. Constitutional Basis for Retroactivity

Congress may enact retroactive legislation where necessary to:

  • remedy ongoing violations of federal authority,

  • prevent obstruction of federal law,

  • restore uniformity in immigration enforcement,

  • and correct unlawful interference with federal operations

consistent with due process requirements
(Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. 386; Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U.S. 244).

Retroactivity under this Act is remedial, not punitive.

Section 4. Definitions

  • “Sanctuary jurisdiction” means any state, city, county, municipality, or political subdivision that:

    1. prohibits or restricts cooperation with federal immigration authorities;

    2. refuses to honor immigration detainers;

    3. restricts information‑sharing regarding immigration status;

    4. prevents law enforcement from communicating with federal immigration agencies.

  • “Federal immigration authorities” means DHS, ICE, CBP, or any successor agency.

  • “Detainer request” means a lawful request issued by federal immigration authorities for temporary custody or notification of release.

Section 5. Prohibition on Sanctuary Jurisdictions

  1. No state or political subdivision may adopt, enforce, or maintain any law, ordinance, policy, or practice that designates itself as a sanctuary jurisdiction.

  2. All existing sanctuary policies are hereby declared null, void, and without legal effect.

  3. Any jurisdiction that maintains or enacts a sanctuary policy after the effective date of this Act violates federal law.

Section 6. Mandatory Cooperation Requirements

All jurisdictions within the United States shall:

  1. Honor all lawful immigration detainer requests.

  2. Provide federal immigration authorities with access to detention facilities, booking information, and custody records.

  3. Share immigration‑status information upon request.

  4. Notify federal immigration authorities at least 48 hours before the release of any removable alien in custody.

  5. Permit federal immigration authorities to conduct operations within their jurisdiction without interference.

Section 7. Criminal Penalties for Non‑Compliance

  1. Any state or local official who knowingly enacts, enforces, or maintains a sanctuary policy shall be guilty of a federal misdemeanor, punishable by:

    • up to 5 years imprisonment, and

    • a fine of up to $25,000 per violation.

  3. Any official who knowingly obstructs federal immigration enforcement shall be guilty of a federal felony, punishable by:

    • up to 10 years imprisonment, and

    • a fine of up to $100,000.

  5. Each day of continued violation constitutes a separate offense.

Section 8. Civil Penalties and Federal Funding Restrictions

  1. Any sanctuary jurisdiction shall be ineligible for:

    • federal law‑enforcement grants,

    • homeland‑security grants,

    • transportation funding,

    • community‑development block grants,

    • any discretionary federal funds.

  3. Civil penalties of up to $100,000 per day may be imposed for continued non‑compliance.

  4. Federal agencies shall withhold funds until full compliance is certified.

Section 9. Federal Contract Compliance Requirement

  1. No federal agency may award, renew, or maintain any contract with a jurisdiction that:

    • enacts or maintains a sanctuary policy,

    • refuses to honor detainers,

    • restricts information‑sharing,

    • or obstructs federal immigration enforcement.

  3. All federal contracts shall include mandatory compliance clauses enforceable through termination, debarment, and financial penalties.

  4. This authority is grounded in the Spending Clause (South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203).

Section 10. Federal Preemption

  1. Federal immigration law preempts all conflicting state or local laws (Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387).

  2. No state or local government may interfere with, obstruct, or nullify federal immigration enforcement.

  3. Any conflicting law or ordinance is preempted and void.

Section 11. Private Right of Action

  1. Any U.S. citizen harmed by a sanctuary policy may bring a civil action against the jurisdiction responsible.

  2. Remedies include:

    • compensatory damages,

    • punitive damages,

    • injunctive relief,

    • attorneys’ fees.

  4. No immunity doctrine shall bar suit.

Section 12. Federal Oversight and Enforcement

  1. The Department of Justice shall enforce this Act.

  2. The Attorney General may investigate any jurisdiction suspected of violating this Act.

  3. The Attorney General may issue subpoenas, compel testimony, and require production of documents.

  4. The Attorney General may bring civil or criminal actions to enforce compliance.

Section 13. Severability

If any provision of this Act, or its application to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder shall remain in full force and effect.

Section 14. Enactment

This Act becomes effective immediately upon its passage.

1 Like
2

I hope Republican Congressional members see this before negotiations with the Democrats on immigration.

1 Like
3

What, if anything, does this proposed act accomplish that cannot be accomplished under existing statutes? Wouldn’t enforcement of the supremacy clause solve this? Does this give the federal government authority to withhold funds from jurisdictions that don’t comply? If not, why not? If so, how?

It seems to me that the threat to bring about compliance should be to withhold ALL funding at the state level until those jurisdictions comply with federal law. This would bring pressure across the political spectrum. It might even result in changes in government leadership.

Most American metropolitan centers have been hollowed out. By that I mean that the productive people in those locations left for the suburbs or smaller cities. Some even shifted geographically as the growth in FL, TX, and TN reflect. What is left is a voting majority that demands government subsidies.

Does anyone know if the Twin Cities have been hollowed out in this way? I suspect that it has and that the success of Frey, Ellison, et al is due to their support from that dependent society.

4

Having found the time to review the proposed act, I have the following comments, observations and questions:

Section 6 should include all territories of the US as well as all the states.
Section 7 should make it a felony to enact, enforce or maintain a sanctuary policy, too, not just a misdemeanor; public officials must face severe consequences for acting thusly
Section 9:
2. Why itemize the sources of funding? Why not simply say ALL federal funds except Social Security and Medicare? Stopping all funding will build political pressure by those receiving ANY AND ALL funds administered by the state or sent to the state, not sent directly to individuals as in the case of SS/MC.
Section 9: Why not make all federal contracts null and void and subject to renegotiation?
3. Remove “up to” and make penalties $100,000 per day, period. Consequences must be harsh and non-negotiable.
Section 11: Why not allow any US citizen to bring suit to invoke the terms outlined in prior sections? Is the intent only to allow action in tort? The problem with laws such as this is that an administrations like the last one might simply refuse to enforce it. By allowing any citizen to invoke the law, this would be obviated. If it had been possible for individual citizens to invoke penalties (such as removal from office) for non-enforcement of border security, the millions of illegals from all over the world would not have found their way to the US.