The bill adds a new federal offense to chapter 93 of Title 18 that targets senior state and local executive officials who knowingly prohibit, limit, or restrict compliance with formal Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requests for reasonable advance notice of a criminal alien’s scheduled release. It defines “reasonable advance notice” to mean, unless impossible, notice provided at least 48 hours before release and ties the conduct to acting “under color of law.”
Penalties are tiered by the seriousness of the underlying criminal charge that led to custody: the harshest range (10–25 years) applies when the released person was charged or convicted of murder, rape, or sex offenses against a minor; mid-range penalties (5–10 years) apply for serious violent felonies; and lower penalties (30 days–6 months) apply for other offenses. The statute also identifies who counts as a “responsible executive official,” which affects who can be charged.
At a Glance
What It Does
Establishes a new criminal provision—18 U.S.C. §1925—making it unlawful for a senior state or local executive official to knowingly block DHS from getting reasonable advance notice about the release of a criminal alien. The statute sets a 48-hour notice baseline and attaches different prison terms depending on the released person’s offense.
Who It Affects
Senior executive officials of states and local governments (the most senior official overseeing the challenged policy), state and local agencies that set or implement detention and release practices, and federal prosecutors and DHS personnel who issue and rely on formal notice requests.
Why It Matters
The bill shifts enforcement of certain immigration-cooperation disputes from civil or administrative remedies into the federal criminal arena, raising new liability exposure for elected and appointed executive officials and creating a legal lever to compel local cooperation with DHS detainer and notification requests.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a single new section into federal criminal law that targets official interference with immigration enforcement. It does so not by criminalizing ordinary local policies but by focusing on the conduct of ‘responsible executive officials’—the most senior executive charged with overseeing the relevant law or policy—when they, acting under color of law, knowingly adopt or enforce measures that prevent compliance with a DHS request for advance notice of a criminal alien’s release. "Knowingly" is the culpable mental state the statute requires for liability.
A key drafting choice is the statutory definition of “reasonable advance notice,” which sets a floor: except where impossible, DHS must be given notice at least 48 hours before release. The vehicle for triggering the offense is a ‘‘formal request’’ by DHS; the bill does not elaborate on what makes a request formal, leaving that threshold to practice and potential litigation.
The provision applies specifically to requests “regarding the scheduled release date and time of the criminal alien,” tying the offense to operational notification rather than to broader policy disagreements over immigration enforcement.Penalties are calibrated to the seriousness of the underlying crime alleged or convicted against the released alien. If the alien was charged with or convicted of murder, rape, or a federal or state sex offense against a minor, the responsible official faces a 10-to-25-year term.
Serious violent felonies carry a 5-to-10-year term, and all other Federal or State offenses trigger a short-term penalty between 30 days and 6 months. The bill also cross-references several statutory terms from existing sentencing law and defines “criminal alien” to cover any noncitizen charged with or convicted of a state or federal crime.Finally, the bill locates liability at the individual-executive level rather than imposing direct criminal sanctions on municipal corporations or lower-level employees.
It therefore creates a potential enforcement path for federal prosecutors to bring criminal charges against governors, mayors, county executives, or their most senior delegates when those officials adopt policies that intentionally block DHS notice or cooperation.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill creates a new federal offense codified as 18 U.S.C. §1925 that targets senior state or local executive officials who 'knowingly' prohibit, limit, or restrict compliance with DHS requests for advance notice of a criminal alien’s release.
It defines 'reasonable advance notice' to mean, unless impossible, notice provided at least 48 hours before the scheduled release date and time.
Liability requires that the official act 'under color of law' and be the 'responsible executive official'—the most senior executive charged with overseeing the relevant policy or action.
Penalties are tiered by the severity of the underlying offense: 10–25 years if the released person was charged or convicted of murder, rape, or a sex offense against a minor; 5–10 years for serious violent felonies; and 30 days–6 months for other offenses.
The statutory trigger is a 'formal request' by the Department of Homeland Security for advance notice of release, but the bill does not define what constitutes a formal request or how DHS must deliver it.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the bill the name 'End Sanctuary Cities Act of 2026.' This is procedural but signals the legislative objective and frames subsequent provisions around sanctuary policies and cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
Key terms and cross-references
Sets the vocabulary the criminal statute uses, pulling several definitions from existing federal law: 'criminal alien' (cross-references INA §101(a)), 'Federal sex offense' and 'minor' (cross-references sentencing definitions), 'serious violent felony,' and the meanings of State/unit of local government. It also introduces statutory terms unique to the bill—'reasonable advance notice' (a practical 48-hour baseline) and 'responsible executive official' (a title that locates responsibility at the top of the executive chain). Those definitional choices narrow who can be charged and establish the metric courts will use to judge notice timing and authority.
What officials cannot do
Prohibits a responsible executive official, acting under color of law, from knowingly prohibiting, limiting, or restricting compliance with any formal DHS request for reasonable advance notice about the scheduled release of a criminal alien. The clause ties criminality to both status (senior official) and intent ('knowingly') and squarely targets official decisions—laws, rules, policies, practices, or actions—that interfere with DHS notification requests rather than incidental noncompliance by lower-level staff.
Tiered punishment linked to the released person's offense
Creates three punishment tiers based on the underlying criminal charge or conviction of the released alien: the highest tier (10–25 years) for murder, rape, or sex offenses against minors; a mid-tier (5–10 years) for serious violent felonies; and a low-tier (30 days–6 months) for other state or federal offenses. The statute makes the penalty contingent on the release resulting from the prohibited conduct, which inserts causation as an element of proof.
Operational and drafting residuals
The bill leaves several operational matters unaddressed: it does not define 'formal request' or prescribe how DHS must document or serve notices; it does not create an administrative remedy prior to criminal prosecution; and it limits criminal exposure to the senior executive level rather than line staff. These drafting choices create practical questions about how federal prosecutors will establish a 'knowing' prohibition, demonstrate causation between the policy and release, and identify the appropriate individual to charge.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Immigration across all five countries.
Explore Immigration in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Department of Homeland Security and ICE: Strengthens the federal government's leverage to obtain advance notification of criminal-aliens’ releases and creates a criminal enforcement tool to deter noncooperation.
- Federal prosecutors: Provides a statutory basis to bring felony charges against senior local executives for obstructing DHS notification requests, potentially increasing prosecutorial leverage in intergovernmental disputes.
- Victims and public-safety advocates: The statute ties enhanced penalties to the most serious offenses, aiming to reduce the chance that individuals charged with violent or sexual crimes are released without federal notice.
- Local law-enforcement agencies that cooperate with DHS: May see operational benefits from clearer federal expectations and improved information flow about releases that affect safety and investigations.
Who Bears the Cost
- State governors and municipal executives: Face new criminal exposure for policies that limit cooperation with DHS, potentially chilling politically driven local choices about immigration enforcement.
- City and county legal departments: Will likely need to invest in policy audits, counsel, and compliance systems to insulate senior officials from criminal liability and to document interactions with DHS.
- Localities with sanctuary policies: Could face legal and political pressure to modify written directives or internal procedures to avoid creating a record that federal prosecutors could use to prove a 'knowing' prohibition.
- Federal courts and U.S. Attorneys' offices: Will receive novel prosecutions that raise complex questions about intent, causation, and federalism, increasing litigation and resource demands.
- Community-based policing and public-safety programs: May experience strained trust with immigrant communities if local officials alter policies to avoid prosecution, potentially reducing community cooperation with police.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is federal enforcement power versus local autonomy: the bill seeks to ensure federal notice and protect public safety by criminalizing senior officials who block DHS requests, but doing so risks federal criminal intervention into politically charged local policy choices and raises hard questions about proof of intent, the scope of executive responsibility, and the proper boundary between federal immigration enforcement and state/local governance.
The bill raises immediate implementation and constitutional complications. Criminalizing the actions of senior state or local executives puts federal prosecutors in the position of policing local policy choices; proving a 'knowing' prohibition or restriction will require prosecutors to show that a policy decision was intended to block specific DHS requests rather than to serve local priorities (public safety, policing strategy, limited resources).
The statute's focus on 'responsible executive official' narrows who can be charged but creates fact-intensive disputes about who occupies that role for a particular law, policy, or practice.
The drafting also leaves operational gaps that will matter in court. 'Formal request' is undefined; DHS practice will determine how notices are transmitted and documented. The 48-hour 'reasonable advance notice' baseline is workable as an operational standard but may be impossible in many custodial-release scenarios; the statute borrows the 'unless impossible' qualifier but gives no guidance about when impossibility applies.
Finally, tying penalties to the released person's offense imports causation into the offense, meaning prosecutors must link the official’s conduct to an actual release—an evidentiary hurdle that could limit the statute's practical reach or push litigants into lengthy discovery battles over detention decision-making.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.