This bill declares that jurisdictions with policies restricting cooperation with federal immigration authorities are ineligible to receive Department of Homeland Security support for Special Event Assessment Rating (SEAR) activities. It ties eligibility to a certification of compliance with federal immigration law (including 8 U.S.C. 1373) and requires a 30‑day notice period before ineligibility takes effect.
Funds that would have gone to SEAR support in ineligible jurisdictions are to be reallocated to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO), with a preference for arrests and removals tied to public‑safety threats and a statutory floor requiring at least half of reallocated amounts go to border‑related operations. The bill also mandates semiannual reporting to Congress on withheld funds, reallocations, enforcement outcomes, and effects on event security.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill makes jurisdictions that bar sharing immigration-status information or refuse DHS detainer requests ineligible for SEAR funds and related grants, after a 30‑day notice and failure to certify compliance. Dollars withheld are reallocated to ICE ERO, prioritized for criminal noncitizen arrests and border removals.
Who It Affects
State and local governments with so-called sanctuary policies, DHS grant administrators (including the Office of Operations Coordination and Homeland Security Grant Program managers), ICE ERO as the recipient of reallocated funds, and organizers of major events in affected jurisdictions.
Why It Matters
It uses federal grant conditions to press local immigration cooperation while redirecting preparedness resources toward immigration enforcement—shifting both financial flows and leverage between federal and local authorities and changing how event security support is allocated.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill starts by establishing what counts as a 'sanctuary jurisdiction': any state or political subdivision that has a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that either (a) prevents sharing information about a person’s citizenship or immigration status with government entities, or (b) bars compliance with DHS requests to detain noncitizens under 8 U.S.C. 1226 or 1357. That definition reaches a mix of formal local laws and more informal policies, and it anchors eligibility to a single certification of 'full compliance' with federal immigration laws.
If the Secretary of Homeland Security determines a jurisdiction meets that definition, DHS must notify the jurisdiction; the jurisdiction then has 30 days to certify compliance. If it does not certify, the bill renders that jurisdiction ineligible for SEAR support and related DHS grant funding for events taking place within its borders.
SEAR support is defined broadly to include risk assessments, explosive detection teams, cyber support, and similar resources provided for voluntarily submitted events, and the ineligibility language expressly mentions the Office of Operations Coordination and programs like the Homeland Security Grant Program.Money no longer spent on SEAR support in an ineligible jurisdiction is to be transferred to ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations. The statute instructs DHS and ICE to prioritize spending on enforcement actions tied to public‑safety threats (convicted criminal noncitizens, gang members, individuals on watch lists) and requires that at least 50 percent of reallocated funds go to border‑related removals and enforcement operations.
Finally, the bill requires semiannual reports to Congress listing amounts withheld and reallocated, counts of arrests/detentions/deportations attributed to the reallocated funding, and an assessment of changes in risk from 'illegal aliens' at major events.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines 'sanctuary jurisdiction' to include policies that restrict sharing immigration-status information or that bar compliance with DHS detainer requests under INA sections 236 and 287 (8 U.S.C. 1226, 1357).
DHS must notify a jurisdiction it deems a sanctuary jurisdiction and the jurisdiction has 30 days to certify full compliance with immigration law (including 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(17) and 8 U.S.C. 1373) before ineligibility for SEAR support takes effect.
Ineligible jurisdictions lose access to SEAR support and related grant funds, explicitly naming the DHS Office of Operations Coordination and programs such as the Homeland Security Grant Program.
Amounts equal to the withheld SEAR expenditures must be reallocated to ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, with at least 50% earmarked for border‑related removals and priority on arrests/detentions/deportations tied to public‑safety threats.
The Secretary of Homeland Security must report to Congress every six months on withheld and reallocated amounts, enforcement outcomes (arrests, detentions, deportations), and the Act’s impact on event security risks.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Gives the Act its name: the 'Sanctuary Jurisdiction Event Security Enhancement Act.' This is a standard labeling clause but signals congressional intent to frame the measure as both an immigration and event‑security statute.
Findings and legal framing
Lays out the policy rationale DHS will use to justify conditioning SEAR funds on immigration cooperation, cites examples of border encounters with watch‑listed individuals, and invokes South Dakota v. Dole to frame the conditioning of federal funds as constitutional. Those findings are not operative law but are intended to buttress the statute against constitutional challenge and to record congressional intent about the linkage between immigration cooperation and event security.
Definitions — 'sanctuary jurisdiction' and 'SEAR support'
Provides operative definitions that determine who is affected. 'Sanctuary jurisdiction' hinges on local statutes, ordinances, policies, or practices that either bar information exchange about immigration status or bar compliance with DHS detention requests; 'SEAR support' is defined to include a broad set of DHS services for event security. The breadth of these definitions is critical because the statute applies to any 'statute, ordinance, policy, or practice,' which could sweep in both formal laws and guidance documents.
Ineligibility rule and certification timeline
Establishes the core mechanism: ineligibility for SEAR funding for events in designated sanctuary jurisdictions. The practical trigger is administrative: DHS notifies a jurisdiction, a 30‑day window opens, and the jurisdiction must certify 'full compliance' with immigration laws or lose eligibility. That certification requirement imports federal statutory standards (e.g., 8 U.S.C. 1373) into DHS grant administration and creates a discrete administrative timeline for grant managers and local officials.
Reallocation to ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations
Requires that funds no longer expended for SEAR support be redirected to ICE ERO. The section sets operational priorities—public‑safety‑threat removals first—and a quantitative requirement that at least 50 percent of reallocated funds support border‑related removals and operations. This forces a programmatic shift in spending from preparedness and event security to enforcement activities and establishes an earmark within the reallocated pool.
Semiannual reporting to Congress
Mandates biannual reports listing withheld amounts, reallocations, counts of enforcement actions (arrests, detentions, deportations) tied to those funds, and an assessment of effects on event‑related risks. These reporting metrics set expectations for how DHS and ICE should tie spending to measurable enforcement outcomes, but they also require agencies to attribute causation between reallocated dollars and specific operational results.
Severability
Contains a severability clause stating that if any provision is held invalid, the remainder stays in effect. This is standard drafting to limit the reach of judicial invalidation and preserve enforceable parts of the statute.
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
- U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Enforcement and Removal Operations): The bill channels withheld SEAR monies directly to ICE, increasing ERO’s discretionary resources and creating a new, statutory funding stream prioritizing arrests and removals tied to public‑safety threats.
- Federal enforcement policymakers and officials focused on immigration removal: The statute gives DHS and ICE greater leverage to press localities for immigration cooperation and new budgetary tools to prioritize border and criminal‑alien enforcement operations.
- Advocates for stricter immigration enforcement and constituencies prioritizing removals: They gain an instrument that shifts federal dollars toward enforcement actions that align with their priorities and creates reporting requirements that can be used to show enforcement outputs.
Who Bears the Cost
- State and local governments labeled 'sanctuary jurisdictions': They lose access to SEAR assistance and related grant dollars for events, increasing local costs for security planning and potentially shifting the burden of securing major events to municipal budgets or private organizers.
- Event organizers and venues in affected jurisdictions: Without DHS SEAR services—risk assessments, explosive detection teams, cyber support—organizers may face higher insurance costs, need to procure private security or reduce event scale, and absorb new logistical burdens.
- DHS grant programs and local preparedness initiatives: Redirecting funds away from preparedness and resilience (via the Homeland Security Grant Program, among others) could reduce capabilities for explosive detection, cyber hardening, and other non‑enforcement security measures at a time when localities rely on federal grants.
- Federal courts and legal budgets: The definitions and certification mechanisms are likely to spawn litigation over designation criteria, certification burdens, and alleged coercion, imposing potential costs on the judiciary and defense budgets for localities defending against enforcement actions.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether the federal government should use conditional grant power to compel local cooperation on immigration—pursuing removal‑focused public‑safety objectives—at the cost of withdrawing preparedness and event‑security support that localities rely on; the statute solves one perceived risk (limited immigration cooperation) by reallocating resources in a way that could exacerbate the very security gaps federal SEAR support was designed to close.
The bill leans on the federal spending power to achieve immigration objectives by conditioning event‑security assistance on local compliance. That raises predictable legal questions: whether conditioning SEAR funds on an immigration‑compliance certification crosses the line from permissible inducement into unconstitutional coercion, particularly where the withheld funds are used to finance a substitute federal enforcement program.
While the findings cite South Dakota v. Dole, courts will look at the size of the incentive, the clarity of conditions, and whether the condition is germane to the federal interest in event security.
Operationally, the statute creates ambiguity for grant administrators and local officials. The definition of 'sanctuary jurisdiction' covers statutes, ordinances, policies, or practices, which could capture informal guidance or internal memos.
The certification requirement references 'full compliance' with immigration law and 8 U.S.C. 1373—a statute that has been subject to legal dispute—leaving open questions about the evidentiary standard DHS must accept. Measuring the downstream impact promised by the reallocation is also difficult: attributing a specific arrest, detention, or deportation to funds shifted from SEAR support requires granular accounting and may conflate correlation with causation.
Finally, diverting preparedness funds into enforcement risks a perverse trade‑off where weakened local event security increases vulnerabilities that the statute purports to reduce.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.