This bill amends section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1373) to narrow the room for state and local policies that limit exchange of immigration or citizenship information with federal authorities. It defines the kinds of custody and immigration-related data covered, creates a legal definition for “materially restrict,” and bars laws, policies, or practices that prohibit, delay, condition, or penalize timely sharing.
The bill also creates operational duties and enforcement tools: jurisdictions must provide 48‑hour advance notice for scheduled releases and, for unscheduled court-ordered releases, notify DHS immediately and may be required to hold individuals up to 48 hours to allow federal assumption of custody. The Attorney General may sue to enjoin noncompliance and declare jurisdictions ineligible for Justice Department law‑enforcement grants; the bill also extends federal‑style immunity to state and local officers acting under its provisions.
These changes affect jails, sheriffs, municipal legal departments, and grant administrators, and raise implementation, fiscal, and legal questions for states with existing limits on immigration cooperation.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill expands and clarifies federal authority under 8 U.S.C. 1373 by defining covered ‘‘information,’’ prohibiting state/local laws or policies that ‘‘materially restrict’’ its sharing with DHS, and creating specific notification and custody rules tied to releases from criminal custody. It adds a statutory obligation for DHS to respond to status verification requests, grants immunity to local officers acting under the section, and authorizes the Attorney General to seek injunctive relief and withhold DOJ law‑enforcement grants for knowing violations.
Who It Affects
County jails, sheriffs, municipal police departments, state corrections agencies, and court administrators who handle detentions and releases; the Department of Homeland Security and ICE as the federal recipients; state attorneys general and municipal legal counsel who defend or implement local policies; and grant administrators at DOJ who will administer eligibility decisions.
Why It Matters
The bill converts common administrative practices into clear statutory duties and links grant eligibility to compliance, raising operational and budgetary stakes for jurisdictions that limit immigration cooperation. It also narrows legal defenses by providing officer immunity and a federal enforcement path, making this a consequential change for local–federal relations over immigration enforcement.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill rewrites the text of 8 U.S.C. 1373 to spell out what kinds of records and data states and localities must make available to federal immigration authorities and what kinds of local rules are forbidden. It lists specific categories of ‘‘information’’—from immigration or citizenship status to custody, facility location, release dates, and transfer details—so the statute covers typical booking and detention records.
It also introduces a statutory definition of ‘‘materially restrict,’’ which expressly covers prohibitions, delays, conditioning, or penalties that interfere with timely transmission.
On operational duties, the bill creates two concrete timing rules. Where a release from criminal custody is known at least 48 hours in advance, the jurisdiction must provide DHS notice no later than 48 hours before release.
Where a court orders an unscheduled release, the jurisdiction must notify DHS immediately and may be required to keep the individual in custody for up to 48 hours so DHS can assume custody. Separate from notification duties, the bill requires DHS to respond to lawful verification requests from federal, state, or local agencies seeking to ascertain a person’s immigration or citizenship status.For enforcement and legal structure, the Attorney General gains express authority to sue in federal court to enforce the statute and seek declaratory or injunctive relief.
A judicial finding that a jurisdiction knowingly violated the statute can be the basis for the Attorney General to deem that jurisdiction ineligible for DOJ law‑enforcement grants. The bill also extends to state and local law enforcement officers the same personal‑liability immunity they would have if they were federal officers when carrying out duties described in the section—maintaining and sharing information, notifying DHS, investigating and transferring persons for immigration enforcement.Practically, the measure transforms administrative notifications and cooperation into statutory obligations with civil‑enforcement consequences and funding risk.
Local agencies that already cooperate will see little operational change beyond documenting compliance; jurisdictions that deliberately limit information sharing, or have local approval or privacy‑based holdback policies, will face legal exposure, potential loss of DOJ grants, and new detention‑related duties that carry resource implications.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines ‘‘information’’ to include immigration/citizenship status, custody status, release dates/times, facility or detention location, and transfer/discharge information.
It defines ‘‘materially restrict’’ to include prohibitions, delays, conditions, or penalties that interfere with timely transmission of covered information.
For releases scheduled at least 48 hours in advance, jurisdictions must notify DHS no later than 48 hours before release; for unscheduled court‑ordered releases, jurisdictions must notify DHS immediately and may hold the individual up to 48 hours to permit federal assumption of custody.
The Attorney General may sue to enforce the statute and may have jurisdictions found in ‘‘knowing violation’’ declared ineligible for DOJ law‑enforcement grants.
State and local law enforcement officers acting within their official duties under this section receive immunity from personal liability equivalent to federal law enforcement officers when performing the listed duties.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the bill the ‘‘No Sanctuary Cities Act of 2026.’
What counts as ‘‘information’’ and what ‘‘materially restrict’’ means
This subsection replaces the existing text of 8 U.S.C. 1373 with explicit definitions. By specifying categories of records (immigration/citizenship status, custody and release details, facility location, transfer information), the bill narrows any ambiguity about what agencies must share. The statutory definition of ‘‘materially restrict’’ focuses litigation on whether a local rule effectively blocks timely transmission rather than on broader notions of policy scope, which will shape how courts analyze municipal ordinances and state statutes.
Bans policies that stop, delay, condition, or punish sharing
This subsection forbids any law, regulation, policy, or practice that (1) prohibits or materially restricts sharing covered information with DHS or other government entities, (2) punishes officials for sharing, or (3) requires advance approvals or supervisory steps that materially restrict timely sharing. The practical implication: routine local processes that insert multi‑step approvals, mandatory notice to counsel before sharing, or blanket prohibitions will be vulnerable to enforcement if they produce delays or conditions judged to be material.
Timing rules for scheduled and unscheduled releases
This provision imposes a 48‑hour advance‑notice rule for scheduled releases and an immediate‑notification plus up to 48‑hour custody window for unscheduled court‑ordered releases. That custody window is discretionary language permitting jurisdictions to hold individuals to allow federal assumption of custody; it may conflict with state rules limiting detentions beyond court orders or with bail and speedy‑release obligations, creating operational and legal friction for jails and detention centers.
DHS response duty and local‑officer immunity
Subsection (d) places an affirmative duty on DHS to respond to verification inquiries from government agencies seeking status information. Subsection (e) grants local officers the same personal‑liability immunity as federal officers when acting within the scope of the section’s duties, insulating them from civil suits tied to information sharing or transfers. That immunity narrows the risk calculus for officers but raises questions about avenues for individuals to seek redress for wrongful detention or transfer.
Enforcement and grant eligibility
Section 3 authorizes the Attorney General to bring civil actions for declaratory and injunctive relief to enforce the statute and allows the AG to render a jurisdiction ineligible for DOJ law‑enforcement grants if a court finds knowing violations. The statute does not enumerate specific grant programs or set out a procedural framework for declaring ineligibility, leaving administrative rulemaking and case law to define how and when funding penalties will apply.
Severability
Standard severability clause: if part of the Act is invalidated, the remainder survives. Practically, this preserves the rest of the statutory framework in the event courts strike portions of the amendment.
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 — Gains clearer statutory access to booking, custody, and release information and a formal avenue to demand and receive verification responses, improving operational ability to identify and assume custody of noncitizens.
- U.S. Department of Justice and the Attorney General — Receives an express enforcement tool (civil suits and injunctive relief) and a mechanism to condition DOJ law‑enforcement grants on compliance, strengthening federal leverage over noncompliant jurisdictions.
- Local law enforcement agencies that already cooperate — Benefit from statutory clarity and reduced litigation exposure because the law aligns federal expectations with existing practices and provides officer immunity when acting under the statute.
Who Bears the Cost
- Sanctuary or limited‑cooperation jurisdictions (cities, counties, and states) — Face legal exposure, possible injunctive orders, and the risk of losing DOJ law‑enforcement grant funding if courts find knowing violations of the statute.
- County jails and state correctional systems — May incur operational costs from the 48‑hour notification and custody rules (staffing, bed capacity, transport) and potential legal claims when detentions are extended to permit federal assumption of custody.
- Municipal legal departments and state attorneys general — Will face increased litigation and compliance counsel burdens defending or reshaping local policies to avoid enforcement or grant penalties, including potential budgetary impacts.
- Communities and service providers serving immigrant populations — May suffer reduced trust in law enforcement and public service use where increased information sharing leads to greater immigration‑enforcement exposure, with downstream public‑safety and public‑health costs.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill pits the federal government’s interest in unfettered access to immigration‑related information and the operational ability to assume custody against state and local prerogatives to set policies that promote community trust, local control over detention practices, and compliance with state legal constraints; resolving that tension requires choosing between more effective federal enforcement and the fiscal, legal, and public‑trust costs borne by local jurisdictions.
The bill converts administrative practices and intergovernmental coordination norms into enforceable federal obligations, but it leaves several practical and legal questions unresolved. The statutory phrase ‘‘materially restrict’’ is meant to focus enforcement on delays and blocks to timely transmission, yet its application will turn on fact‑intensive inquiries about how policies operate in practice.
Courts will need to decide whether multilayered approval processes, privacy protections, or record‑retention rules qualify as ‘‘material’’ restrictions — a line that is not self‑evident and will produce litigation over municipal procedures and written policies.
Operationally, the unscheduled‑release custody window raises immediate implementation challenges. Requiring jurisdictions to hold individuals for up to 48 hours after a court‑ordered release implicates state law constraints on detention, local court orders, and resource limits in jails; whether holding for up to 48 hours is mandatory or permissive in specific cases may produce disputes and emergency litigation.
The grant‑eligibility penalty likewise lacks a procedural roadmap in the text: the bill authorizes the Attorney General to deem jurisdictions ineligible, but it does not specify notice, cure periods, or the affected grant programs, leaving room for administrative contestation and uneven application across DOJ programs.
Finally, the expansion of officer immunity simplifies the risk picture for officers but complicates accountability channels for individuals alleging wrongful detention or erroneous transfers. Combined with a duty on DHS to respond to status inquiries, the statute centralizes immigration‑status verification without creating a parallel mechanism to review or correct errors that could lead to unlawful detentions.
These gaps — definitional, procedural, and remedial — will be the primary battlegrounds for implementation and for future litigation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.