This bill establishes a cause of action for people harmed by crimes committed by noncitizens whom a State or local jurisdiction had effectively shielded through policies that restrict cooperation with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) detainer requests or information-sharing. It also conditions certain federal grants on waiver of immunity and declares local officers who comply with DHS detainers to be acting as DHS agents, with the United States substituted as defendant in related suits.
The proposal changes the incentives for localities: jurisdictions that maintain restrictive-information or noncooperation policies face direct exposure to civil suits and potential loss of sovereign-immunity defenses if they accept specific federal grants. At the same time, the bill shifts some liability consequences to the federal government for local officers who follow detainers, while preserving an exception for knowing constitutional violations.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill creates a private remedy for victims (and certain family members) of homicide, rape, or state-defined felonies committed by noncitizens who benefited from a sanctuary policy that prevented compliance with DHS detainer or release-notification requests. It requires specified federal grants to be conditioned on waiver of state or local immunity for these sanctuary-related suits and treats local officials who honor DHS detainers as acting as federal agents, substituting the United States as defendant.
Who It Affects
State governments and political subdivisions with policies restricting cooperation with DHS detainers, local law-enforcement officers who handle detainers, the Department of Homeland Security, victims’ attorneys and insurers that cover governmental liability, and federal grant-making agencies that issue covered grants (public works and community development block grants, among others).
Why It Matters
This bill reforms who can be sued and who ultimately pays. It creates a new, potentially significant liability pathway that could increase litigation costs or pressure jurisdictions to alter policies; it also reassigns legal exposure for compliant officers to the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act framework.
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 defining what counts as a "sanctuary jurisdiction": any State or political subdivision that has a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that either bars or restricts sharing citizenship or immigration status information with other government entities or that prevents compliance with DHS requests under sections 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (the common "detainer" and release-notification requests). The bill expressly carves out a limited exception for policies that withhold information only when an individual comes forward as a victim or witness to a crime.
Its central substantive change is a private civil remedy. A person who is the victim of murder, rape, or another felony (as defined by the State where the crime occurred) — or certain family members if the victim is dead or permanently incapacitated — can sue a State or local government where the defendant noncitizen was arrested, convicted, or sentenced to at least one year, if the jurisdiction failed to comply with a lawful DHS request and either failed to hold the person on a detainer or failed to notify DHS about their release.
Plaintiffs may recover compensatory damages and the court must award reasonable attorney’s fees, including expert fees. The bill also sets a 10-year statute of limitations measured from the crime or resulting death.To blunt sovereign-immunity barriers, the bill conditions receipt of several enumerated federal grants — including Public Works and Economic Development Act grants and most community development block grants — on a waiver of any immunity for sanctuary-related civil actions.
It excludes disaster relief grants tied to a presidential Stafford Act declaration.Finally, the bill addresses cooperation and liability for officers who comply with detainers: a State or local official who complies with a DHS detainer is treated as acting as an agent of DHS and must follow certain DHS regulatory provisions. If a legal challenge arises over a seizure or detention made under a DHS detainer, the bill bars liability for the State or political subdivision and directs that officers who acted according to the detainer be treated as federal employees; 28 U.S.C. 1346(b) (the Federal Tort Claims Act waiver) becomes the exclusive remedy and the United States is substituted as defendant.
The bill adds a caveat that nothing in the section should be read to shield a person who knowingly violates civil or constitutional rights.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill allows victims (or certain family members) of murder, rape, or any state-defined felony to sue a State or political subdivision when the assailant was an alien who benefitted from a sanctuary policy and would not have harmed the plaintiff but for that benefit.
A qualifying criminal predicate requires the alien to have been arrested, convicted, or sentenced to at least one year for the offense in question.
A plaintiff must bring suit within 10 years of the crime or resulting death; prevailing plaintiffs are entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees and expert fees.
States and localities that accept enumerated federal grants (public-works/Economic Development grants, planning/admin grants, supplemental grants, training/research grants, and most Community Development Block Grants) must agree to waive immunity for sanctuary-related civil actions.
When a State or locality complies with a DHS detainer, the bill treats the local actor as acting on behalf of DHS and directs that the United States be substituted as the defendant, making the Federal Tort Claims Act the "exclusive remedy" in those cases.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Definitions: sanctuary jurisdiction and related terms
This section establishes the core vocabulary: an "alien" follows the INA definition; a "sanctuary jurisdiction" is any State or political subdivision with a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that prevents sharing immigration/citizenship information or blocks compliance with DHS requests under INA sections 236 or 287. It also defines "sanctuary policy" and a "sanctuary-related civil action." Notably, it contains an explicit exception so that policies limiting information-sharing do not automatically make a jurisdiction "sanctuary" when they only protect victims or witnesses who come forward.
Private civil remedy for victims
This subsection creates the private right of action and the elements plaintiffs must plead: (1) the plaintiff is a qualifying victim or certain family member; (2) the perpetrator was an alien who was arrested, convicted, or sentenced to at least one year; and (3) the jurisdiction failed to comply with a lawful DHS request and failed to honor a detainer or notify DHS of release. It sets a 10-year filing window and requires courts to award reasonable attorneys’ fees and related costs to prevailing plaintiffs, increasing the financial incentive for contingency-fee litigation.
Waiver of immunity tied to specific federal grants
This provision conditions certain federal grants on a waiver of any state or local immunity for sanctuary-related civil actions. It lists the government programs involved—several Public Works and Economic Development Act grant types and most Community Development Block Grants—while exempting Stafford Act disaster relief grants. Mechanically, jurisdictions that accept these grants must agree to the waiver as a condition of receipt, creating a leverage point short of a direct congressional abrogation of 11th Amendment immunity.
Treatment of local actors who honor DHS detainers
Section 4(a) says a State or local officer who complies with a DHS detainer is to be treated as acting as an agent of DHS and must follow existing DHS regulatory obligations. Section 4(b) then addresses legal proceedings: a State or political subdivision is insulated from liability for actions taken in accordance with the detainer; officers who followed the detainer are deemed federal employees, 28 U.S.C. 1346(b) applies, the United States is substituted as defendant, and FTCA procedures provide the exclusive remedy. Practically, that changes both forum and substantive defenses available to plaintiffs in suits that challenge seizures or detentions made pursuant to detainers.
No shield for knowing rights violations
This short but important clause preserves that nothing in the cooperation/agent provisions may be read to provide immunity for anyone who "knowingly violates the civil or constitutional rights" of an individual. The text does not define the standard for "knowingly," leaving open litigation over when the FTCA substitution or state immunities can be bypassed in practice.
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
- Crime victims and their families — the bill creates a new avenue to seek compensatory damages and attorney’s fees against States or localities whose noncooperation policies allegedly enabled a criminal actor to avoid detention or notification.
- Contingency-based plaintiff attorneys — the statutory fee-shifting and the 10-year limitations window increase the commercial viability of bringing these claims.
- The Department of Homeland Security and federal immigration enforcement — the bill strengthens leverage to secure cooperation from local jurisdictions by tying grant conditions and by formalizing detainer compliance mechanics.
- Local jurisdictions that comply with DHS detainers — those jurisdictions receive a statutory shield from state-level liability for detainer-based seizures and have the United States substituted as defendant, reducing local fiscal exposure in those specific incidents.
Who Bears the Cost
- States and political subdivisions that maintain restrictive-information or noncooperation policies — they face increased exposure to civil suits, damages, and higher insurance premiums if they accept covered federal grants and thus waive immunity.
- Local law enforcement agencies — operational burdens will increase (tracking DHS requests, preserving records, altering arrest/detention procedures) and they may face new litigation if they decline to honor detainers or fail to notify DHS.
- Federal agencies and taxpayers — where officers are treated as federal agents and the United States is substituted as defendant, the federal government may face more FTCA claims, indemnity exposure, and administrative costs tied to defense and settlements.
- Insurers and municipal bondholders — increased litigation and indemnity risk can translate into higher liability insurance costs and potential impacts on creditworthiness for jurisdictions at risk of repeated claims.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is accountability versus federalism: the bill pressures localities to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement by exposing them to private damages suits and conditioning federal grants, but it also redirects many claims toward federal defenses and FTCA limits, potentially reducing victims’ practical remedies while raising serious questions about coercion of state and local autonomy and the equitable distribution of liability between local and federal governments.
The bill creates several legal and operational tensions. First, its remedial scheme mixes direct private suits against States with a grant-condition waiver of immunity: plaintiffs seeking recovery against a State that never accepted the enumerated grants may still confront traditional sovereign-immunity defenses, while jurisdictions that did accept grants lose that defense — creating uneven exposure across jurisdictions and a likely wave of jurisdiction-specific litigation over waiver adequacy.
Second, by directing substitution of the United States and designating compliant officers as federal agents, the bill funnels many claims into the Federal Tort Claims Act framework, which carries its own limitations (statutory exceptions, immunities, and procedure) that can materially reduce plaintiffs’ recoveries compared with state-law claims.
Implementation questions are numerous. The statute hinges on whether a DHS request was "lawfully made" and whether a local ordinance or practice qualifies as a "sanctuary policy" — determinations that will require intensive factual findings and likely protracted discovery.
The exception for victim/witness non-sharing policies narrows overbreadth concerns but may chillingly deter jurisdictions from crafting victim-assistance policies for fear of litigation. Finally, the bill’s saving clause for "knowing" constitutional or civil-rights violations is undefined; litigants and courts will quickly contest whether the FTCA substitution precludes constitutional remedies and when bad-faith conduct fits the carve-out.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.