The BLOC Act amends chapter 6 of Title 23, U.S. Code, to bar the Department of Transportation from obligating or awarding federal infrastructure funds to any political subdivision that does not adopt, within one year of enactment, a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice requiring local entities to notify the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) at least 48 hours before releasing certain aliens from custody. The notification requirement applies only where DHS has determined the individual is not lawfully present, DHS has itself notified the local detaining authority within 48 hours before release, and the individual has been detained at least 48 hours prior to release.
Practically, the bill makes access to federal highway and infrastructure dollars contingent on local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. It shifts leverage from direct enforcement to financial conditionality, creates administrative and operational duties for sheriffs and detention facilities, and invites legal challenges around spending‑condition limits, state and local autonomy, and privacy or due‑process concerns for detained individuals.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new §612 to Title 23 prohibiting the Secretary of Transportation from obligating or awarding infrastructure funds to political subdivisions that lack a binding local requirement to notify DHS at least 48 hours before releasing specified noncitizens. The statute gives jurisdictions one year from enactment to adopt the required statute, ordinance, policy, or practice.
Who It Affects
Directly affected are state and local governments that receive or distribute Title 23 funds—state DOTs, counties, cities, and local transit authorities—as well as sheriffs, jails, and detention facilities responsible for compliance and recordkeeping. The Department of Transportation must also implement and enforce the new eligibility condition.
Why It Matters
This is a classic conditional‑spending lever: it ties federal infrastructure dollars to immigration cooperation rather than changing immigration law. For officials managing transportation grants or local detention operations, the bill imposes a near‑term compliance deadline and a narrow but administratively meaningful notification obligation.
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 new federal funding condition into Chapter 6 of Title 23. It directs the Secretary of Transportation to withhold obligation or award of federal infrastructure funds from any political subdivision that does not have, within one year, a written statute, ordinance, policy, or established practice requiring local entities to notify DHS at least 48 hours before releasing certain detained noncitizens.
The notification requirement is limited by three triggers. First, DHS must have determined the person is not lawfully present.
Second, DHS itself must have given the local detaining authority notice of the individual's immigration status not later than 48 hours before the anticipated release. Third, the individual must have been detained for at least 48 hours before release.
Only when those three conditions are present does the local notification duty arise under the political subdivision's required policy.Operationally, the statute covers ‘‘infrastructure projects’’ as defined by 2 C.F.R. §184.3 (the bill incorporates that federal regulation's definition as of enactment). The funding restriction applies both to direct awards to political subdivisions and to funds that a State receives but would otherwise pass through to its subdivisions—so a State that distributes federal Title 23 dollars must ensure its subrecipients meet the new requirement or withhold funds from noncompliant subdivisions.Because the bill conditions funding rather than creating a new federal enforcement command, compliance will rely on written state and local instruments (statute, ordinance, policy, or practice), DOT implementation guidance, and the interaction—sometimes circular—between DHS notifications and local obligations.
The text also contains an explicit one‑year compliance window from enactment, after which DOT must enforce the funding limitation against noncomplying subdivisions.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary of Transportation must not obligate or award Title 23 infrastructure funds to any political subdivision that fails to adopt, within one year, a law, ordinance, policy, or practice requiring a 48‑hour pre‑release notification to DHS for certain detained noncitizens.
The local notification duty only applies when three conditions are met: DHS has determined the individual is not lawfully present, DHS has notified the local detaining authority not later than 48 hours before release, and the individual has been detained at least 48 hours before release.
The statute expressly applies to ‘infrastructure projects’ using the meaning in 2 C.F.R. §184.3 as of the date of enactment, tying the rule to a broad set of federally funded transportation and construction activities.
The bill prevents a State from passing federal Title 23 funds through to a noncomplying political subdivision—so States must either enforce local compliance or withhold subawards.
The compliance deadline is one year after enactment; after that date DOT must withhold awards or obligations for projects tied to noncompliant subdivisions.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the Act’s short name: the ‘Blocking Lawless Open Border Cities and States Act of 2025’ (BLOC Act). This is a standard naming provision with no substantive effect on implementation.
Funding ineligibility based on local notification policies
Adds a new section that conditions DOT obligations and awards of infrastructure funds on whether a political subdivision has a binding statute, ordinance, policy, or practice requiring local entities to notify DHS at least 48 hours before releasing certain aliens. Practically, this creates a clause‑by‑clause test jurisdictions must pass to receive direct awards: adopt a written policy satisfying the bill’s trigger requirements, track instances where the triggers apply, and demonstrate compliance to DOT when funds are awarded.
Three specific triggers that activate the notification duty
The notification duty is not universal: it applies only when (1) DHS has determined the person is unlawfully present, (2) DHS has provided notice to the sheriff or detaining authority not later than 48 hours before release, and (3) the person has been in custody for at least 48 hours prior to release. These layered conditions narrow when the local duty applies but introduce reliance on DHS timing and determinations, which raises practical coordination issues between federal and local actors.
Definition of ‘infrastructure project’ and statutory housekeeping
Defines ‘infrastructure project’ by reference to 2 C.F.R. §184.3 as in effect on enactment, which imports an administrative definition into statute rather than drafting a new one. The bill also updates the chapter analysis to list the new §612. Relying on an external regulation for scope means the set of covered projects will track federal administrative definitions unless DOT or Treasury rules change them at a later date.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Transportation across all five countries.
Explore Transportation 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 — gains a predictable, statutory pathway for receiving pre‑release notice when DHS has already identified an individual as unlawfully present, improving coordination for immigration enforcement operations.
- State transportation agencies and political subdivisions that adopt compliant policies — preserve access to Title 23 funds and avoid project funding interruptions by meeting the one‑year deadline.
- Infrastructure contractors and project owners in compliant jurisdictions — lower risk of contract disruption or deobligation because their local sponsor meets the funding condition.
Who Bears the Cost
- Political subdivisions that refuse or fail to enact the required policy — face loss of direct federal infrastructure awards and potential exclusion from State‑distributed Title 23 funds, threatening local capital projects.
- Local detention facilities and law enforcement agencies — incur administrative burdens to implement 48‑hour notification practices, maintain records demonstrating compliance, and coordinate tightly with DHS’s timing.
- States — must police subrecipient compliance or withhold pass‑through funds, creating administrative overhead and potential intra‑governmental friction; they may also face pressure to reallocate or replace federal dollars if localities lose eligibility.
- Undocumented detainees and immigrant communities — experience increased exposure to federal immigration enforcement where localities implement the new notification practices.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether conditioning transportation dollars on local immigration cooperation is an appropriate, proportionate federal tool to secure immigration outcomes, or an overreach that coerces state and local governments into executing federal priorities and exposes vulnerable populations to increased enforcement; the bill solves one problem (leveraging funds to change local behavior) while raising hard questions about federalism, administrative feasibility, and civil‑liberties tradeoffs.
The bill uses conditional federal spending to compel local cooperation with immigration enforcement; that approach avoids creating a direct federal command but raises constitutional and practical questions. Under existing spending‑clause doctrine, Congress can condition funds if conditions are unambiguous and related to federal interests, but conditions deemed coercive or unrelated to the spending program risk legal challenge.
Here, opposing litigants could argue the policy is either an improper commandeering of state functions or an illegitimate use of highway funds to achieve immigration policy ends.
Implementation also contains drafting and operational wrinkles. The three‑part trigger ties the local duty to actions by DHS (a prior DHS determination and a DHS notice to local authorities), which creates dependency: if DHS fails to provide the required prior notice, the local notification duty may never arise, making enforcement of noncompliance uneven.
The 48‑hour timing requirement may be difficult to observe in practice, especially for short detention periods or in systems with variable release processes. DOT will need to define how it verifies a jurisdiction’s ‘‘statute, ordinance, policy, or practice’’ and whether existing administrative remedies, audits, or certification processes suffice.
Finally, the reliance on an external regulatory definition for ‘infrastructure project’ imports future regulatory changes into statutory scope, which could broaden or narrow coverage without Congressional action.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.