HR 32 · 119th CongressIn Committee

No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act

Latest updateJan 3, 2025

Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Immigration

Sponsor

Nick LaLota

Introduced

January 3, 2025

Latest action

January 3, 2025

Legislative Progress

How far this bill has traveled through Congress

Introduced

Bill filed in chamber

Committee

Reviewed & reported

Passed Chamber

House or Senate vote

Passed Both

House & Senate agree

President

Sent to White House

Enacted

Signed into law

Introduced

Bill filed in chamber

Committee

Reviewed & reported

Passed Chamber

House or Senate vote

Passed Both

House & Senate agree

President

Sent to White House

Enacted

Signed into law

Latest Action

Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.

Plain-Language Summary

AI Generated

Currently, federal law allows states and localities to set their own policies regarding cooperation with immigration enforcement. Some jurisdictions have enacted laws or policies that limit their government entities from sharing immigration status information with federal authorities or complying with Department of Homeland Security detainer requests—actions aimed at protecting residents' privacy and building trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. These jurisdictions, often called "sanctuary" jurisdictions, operate under the principle that local resources should focus on public safety rather than federal immigration enforcement.

The No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act directs the Department of Homeland Security to identify sanctuary jurisdictions and renders them ineligible for federal funds intended to benefit undocumented immigrants. Specifically, beginning 60 days after enactment or the start of the next fiscal year (whichever comes first), any state or locality that prohibits sharing immigration status information or refuses to comply with DHS detainer requests loses access to federal funding earmarked for food, shelter, healthcare, legal services, and transportation for undocumented immigrants. The bill exempts jurisdictions from this definition if they only restrict information-sharing for crime victims or witnesses.

Implementation begins immediately upon enactment. The Department of Homeland Security must compile and submit annual reports to Congress listing noncompliant jurisdictions. The funding restrictions apply to any federal dollars designated for benefits to undocumented immigrants, though the bill does not specify which existing federal programs fall into this category or identify a new funding source. The practical effect would be to redirect or withhold federal resources from sanctuary jurisdictions, potentially shifting costs to state and local budgets or reducing services available to undocumented immigrants in those areas.

Key Provisions

1Defines sanctuary jurisdictions as states or localities that prohibit sharing immigration status information or refuse to comply with Department of Homeland Security detainer requests under immigration law.
2Renders sanctuary jurisdictions ineligible to receive federal funds intended to benefit undocumented immigrants, including money for food, shelter, healthcare, legal services, and transportation, effective 60 days after enactment.
3Exempts jurisdictions from the sanctuary definition if they restrict information-sharing only for crime victims or witnesses to criminal offenses.
4Requires the Secretary of Homeland Security to submit annual reports to Congress listing states and political subdivisions that fail to comply with DHS detainer requests.

★ Why this matters

The bill creates financial consequences for jurisdictions that limit immigration enforcement cooperation, potentially reducing federal support for services used by undocumented immigrants. Sanctuary jurisdictions would lose access to federal funds designated for benefits like healthcare and shelter for undocumented residents. The annual reporting requirement establishes a formal tracking mechanism for noncompliant jurisdictions. States and localities would face pressure to change immigration policies or absorb costs previously covered by federal funding.

● Who this affects

Undocumented immigrants in sanctuary jurisdictions, who may lose access to federally funded services including healthcare, shelter, and legal assistance. State and local governments in sanctuary jurisdictions, which would need to replace lost federal funding or reduce services. The Department of Homeland Security, which must identify sanctuary jurisdictions and compile annual compliance reports. Local law enforcement agencies in sanctuary jurisdictions, which currently operate under policies limiting immigration enforcement cooperation. Cities and counties with large immigrant populations that have adopted sanctuary policies, particularly in California, New York, Illinois, and other states with significant undocumented populations.

Bill Text

View on Congress.gov

Show / hide bill text preview

<DOC>

119th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 H. R. 32

To provide that sanctuary jurisdictions that provide benefits to aliens 
 who are present in the United States without lawful status under the 
 immigration laws are ineligible for Federal funds intended to benefit 
                              such aliens.

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 3, 2025

 Mr. LaLota (for himself, Mr. Feenstra, Mrs. Houchin, Mr. McCaul, and 
Mr. Nunn of Iowa) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 
                     the Committee on the Judiciary

                                 A BILL

 
To provide that sanctuary jurisdictions that provide benefits to aliens 
 who are present in the United States without lawful status under the 
 immigration laws are ineligible for Federal funds intended to benefit 
                              such aliens.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities 
Act''.

SEC. 2. SANCTUARY JURISDICTION DEFINED.

    (a) In General.--Except as provided under subsection (b), for 
purposes of this Act, the term ``sanctuary jurisdiction'' means any 
State or political subdivision of a State that has in effect a statute, 
ordinance, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts any 
government entity or official from--
            (1) sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any 
        Federal, State, or local government entity information 
        regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or 
        unlawful) of any individual; or
            (2) complying with a request lawfully made by the 
        Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of the 
        Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1226 and 1357) to 
        comply with a detainer for, or notify about the release of, an 
        individual.
    (b) Exception.--A State or political subdivision of a State shall 
not be deemed a sanctuary jurisdiction based solely on its having a 
policy whereby its officials will not share information regarding, or 
comply with a request made by the Department of Homeland Security under 
section 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 
1226 and 1357) to comply with a detainer regarding, an individual who 
comes forward as a victim or a witness to a criminal offense.

SEC. 3. SANCTUARY JURISDICTIONS INELIGIBLE FOR CERTAIN FEDERAL FUNDS.

    Beginning on the earlier of the date that is 60 days after the date 
of enactment of this Act or the first day of the fiscal year that 
begins after the date of enactment of this Act, a sanctuary 
jurisdiction is ineligible to receive any Federal funds that the 
sanctuary jurisdiction intends to use for the benefit (including the 
provision of food, shelter, healthcare services, legal se…

Auto-Whip

Where House representatives currently stand

Built from official statements, public releases, and voting records where they exist. Members without enough evidence are marked as no position.

448 tracked

Support

448

No Position

Oppose

Support

Members whose public record points toward backing the bill.

No members in this group yet.

Opposition

Members whose public record points toward opposition.

No members in this group yet.

No Position

Members we are still tracking, but without enough public evidence yet.

448

Alma Adams

D-North Carolina · District 12

No position

No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act

Legislative Progress

Plain-Language Summary

Key Provisions

★ Why this matters

● Who this affects

Bill Text

Where House representatives currently stand

Support

Opposition

No Position

Take Action

Active Organizations

No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act

Legislative Progress

Plain-Language Summary

Key Provisions

★ Why this matters

● Who this affects

Bill Text

Where House representatives currently stand

Support

Opposition

No Position

Take Action

Active Organizations