S.3790 (Protect America Act) is a multi-part federal bill that conditions receipt of certain DOJ, DHS, HUD, and DOT funds on local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, prescribes information‑sharing and detainer rules for federally funded detention facilities, and creates a private civil remedy for victims harmed when a jurisdiction’s “sanctuary policy” foreseeably contributes to a removable alien’s continued presence.
The bill also increases criminal penalties and mandatory detention for illegal entry and reentry, bars F- and M-student visas for institutions located in jurisdictions the Secretary of Homeland Security designates as “sanctuary,” expands federal obstruction and assault offenses to cover loud interference with federal officers, and adds a tax-law bar to 501(c)(3) status for charities that “promote, incite, or provide material support for criminal violence.” Together, the measures reshape the leverage of federal grant conditions, create new compliance burdens for local governments and detention facilities, and expose jurisdictions to litigation and federal enforcement actions.
At a Glance
What It Does
Requires covered jurisdictions to certify they have no ‘sanctuary policy’ as a condition to receive covered Federal funds; directs the Attorney General in coordination with DHS to publish a list of noncompliant jurisdictions; requires detention facilities receiving covered funds to determine and report immigration status within 24 hours and to honor federal detainers; creates a private right of action against jurisdictions for certain violent-crime harms tied to sanctuary policies; raises penalties for illegal entry/reentry and mandates detention for illegal entry offenses; amends criminal statutes to cover loud-noise interference with federal officers and raises penalties for assaults on federal officers; and adds a 501(c)(3) disqualification for organizations that materially support criminal violence.
Who It Affects
State and local governments (and their jails/prisons) that receive grants or contracts from DOJ, DHS, HUD, or DOT; county jails and other covered detention facilities; universities and vocational schools located in jurisdictions designated as sanctuary for F/M visa eligibility; nonprofits whose activities might be construed as promoting or materially supporting violent crime; removable noncitizens subject to detention or enhanced penalties.
Why It Matters
The bill uses federal spending conditions to nationalize immigration cooperation practices, creates new exposure for jurisdictions through fund recovery and civil litigation, and imposes operational and legal compliance requirements on detention facilities and colleges that could shift local budgets and practices. It also tightens criminal liability around border crossings and protest-related interference with federal functions—changes that implicate constitutional, operational, and resource-allocation questions for multiple levels of government and private actors.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill defines a covered set of federal funds (grants, cooperative agreements, loans, contracts) administered by DOJ, DHS, HUD, or DOT and conditions receipt on a jurisdiction’s certification that it has no sanctuary policy and will not adopt one while funds are used. The Attorney General, together with the DHS Secretary, must periodically determine noncompliant jurisdictions, publish a public list, and give written notice identifying the basis for any determination.
Inclusion on that list is prima facie evidence of noncompliance.
If a jurisdiction is found noncompliant, the administering agency must give a written notice and the jurisdiction has 30 days to “cure” by repealing or suspending the offending policy; failure to cure makes the jurisdiction ineligible for covered funds and permits termination and recovery of funds. The bill limits recoverable funds to those obligated or expended during the five years prior to the determination and requires recovered funds, when practicable, to be reallocated to compliant jurisdictions.For detention facilities that receive covered federal funds, the bill imposes operational mandates: make reasonable citizenship determinations for each detainee; notify federal immigration enforcement within 24 hours when an individual is identified as a noncitizen; provide ongoing updates on transfers, charges, bond/sentencing, and release eligibility; permit reasonable access for interviews and detainer lodging; honor lawful detainers and coordinate custody transfers; and retain records documenting these actions for at least five years.
Noncompliance is a separate basis to suspend, terminate, and recover covered funds.Subtitle C creates a federal private right of action for personal injury or death caused by a ‘serious violent felony’ committed by a removable alien where the plaintiff proves, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the jurisdiction had a sanctuary policy, had constructive knowledge as defined in the bill, that the policy was a substantial factor materially impeding federal enforcement, and that the injury was a foreseeable proximate result; inclusion on the Attorney General’s list gives rise to a rebuttable presumption of constructive knowledge. The statute of limitations is 10 years, prevailing plaintiffs recover compensatory damages plus attorneys’ fees, and jurisdictions that accept certain federal funds are treated as waiving sovereign immunity for these claims.On criminal law, the bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to substantially increase fines and prison terms for illegal entry (8 U.S.C. 1325) and illegal reentry (8 U.S.C. 1326), adds a mandatory detention rule for those charged with illegal entry (no release on bond), and raises penalty ranges for repeated removals or aggravated circumstances.
The bill also amends the federal obstruction statute to make creating loud noise with devices (whistles, megaphones, sound amplifiers) that impedes federal officers’ audible communications or operations an act of interference, and increases mandatory minimum sentences for assaulting federal officers, forbidding suspension or probation of those minimums. Finally, it amends the tax code to deny 501(c)(3) status to organizations that promote, incite, or materially support criminal violence, while stating that lawful advocacy remains protected.
The Five Things You Need to Know
Covered jurisdictions must submit a certification attesting they have no ‘sanctuary policy’; false certifications are treated as material false claims under 31 U.S.C. §§3729–3733.
The Attorney General (with DHS) will publish a publicly available list of noncompliant jurisdictions; inclusion is prima facie evidence of noncompliance and creates a rebuttable presumption of constructive knowledge in civil suits.
A covered jurisdiction has 30 days after written notice to ‘cure’ a violation; failure to cure triggers ineligibility, termination of covered funds, and recovery of funds obligated or expended during the noncompliance (with recoveries limited to the prior 5 years).
Covered detention facilities must determine detainees’ citizenship status and notify federal immigration authorities within 24 hours of identifying a noncitizen, provide ongoing status updates, honor lawful detainers and coordinate custody transfers, and retain compliance records for at least 5 years.
Subtitle C establishes a federal private right of action for victims of serious violent felonies committed by removable aliens if a jurisdiction’s sanctuary policy was a substantial factor in materially impeding federal enforcement; successful plaintiffs may recover damages and attorneys’ fees, and the limitations period is 10 years.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Conditions on covered Federal funds and centralized noncompliance determinations
This subtitle defines covered Federal funds (DOJ, DHS, HUD, DOT-administered assistance) and requires a pre-condition certification from any jurisdiction seeking those funds that it has no sanctuary policy and will not adopt one. The Attorney General, coordinated with DHS, must make periodic compliance determinations, publish a list of noncompliant jurisdictions, and provide written notice. Importantly, inclusion on the list is prima facie evidence of noncompliance and triggers procedures for recovery and ineligibility if not cured within 30 days; recoverable funds are limited to obligations or expenditures during the prior five years.
Information sharing, detainer coordination, and recordkeeping for federally funded detention facilities
A covered detention facility must make reasonable determinations of detainees’ citizenship status and notify federal immigration enforcement within 24 hours of identifying a noncitizen. The facility must provide ongoing updates (transfers, charges, release eligibility), give federal officials reasonable access for interviews and detainer placement, and honor lawful detainers and custody transfer coordination. The statute requires retention of documentation for at least five years and treats violations as conditions-breach meriting fund suspension, termination, and recovery—creating both operational and legal compliance obligations for jails and similar facilities.
Private civil remedy and waiver of sovereign immunity
This subtitle authorizes victims (or estates/survivors) injured by a serious violent felony committed by a removable alien to sue a covered jurisdiction if they show the jurisdiction had a sanctuary policy, had constructive knowledge as defined, that the policy materially impeded federal enforcement, and that the injury was a foreseeable proximate result. The Attorney General’s published list creates a rebuttable presumption of constructive knowledge. The statute provides compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, joint-and-several liability for jurisdictions, a 10-year limitations period, and conditions receipt of DOJ/DHS funds on waiver of sovereign immunity for these claims.
Prohibiting student visas for schools in designated sanctuary jurisdictions
Amends INA §214(m) to require DHS to identify sanctuary jurisdictions annually and bar issuance of F- and M-visas for students seeking to attend institutions located in those jurisdictions. The provision defines ‘sanctuary jurisdiction’ by a list of practices (refusing detainer compliance, imposing unreasonable conditions on detainers, denying ICE access to interview incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding communication). The Secretary can later remove a jurisdiction from the list and report to Congress to restore visa eligibility.
Higher criminal penalties and mandatory detention for illegal entry and reentry
Amends 8 U.S.C. 1325 to increase fines and prison terms for illegal entry, adds mandatory detention (no bond/release) for aliens charged with illegal entry. Amends 8 U.S.C. 1326 to raise penalties for illegal reentry—setting longer minimum and maximum prison ranges for various aggravating circumstances (multiple prior removals, prior convictions, removals under specified removal provisions)—and adjusts statutory cross references to DHS administration.
Protecting federal officers from loud interference and increasing assault penalties
Expands 18 U.S.C. 231 obstruction language to cover acts that ‘interfere with’ federal officers performing official duties, explicitly defining 'interfere' to include creating loud noise with devices (whistles, megaphones, sound amplifiers) that impede operations or audible communications. Separately, amends 18 U.S.C. 111 to raise maximums and add mandatory minimums for assaulting federal officers and prohibits suspending those mandatory minimums.
Denial of 501(c)(3) status for organizations supporting criminal violence
Adds a new subsection to IRC §501 denying tax-exempt status under §501(c)(3) to organizations that ‘promote, incite, or provide material support for criminal violence,’ while stating this should not criminalize lawful First Amendment–protected speech or advocacy absent promotion, incitement, or material support. The amendment applies to taxable years beginning after enactment.
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 (ICE) and DHS — the bill creates statutory duties for local actors to share immigration-status information, honor detainers, and provide access, increasing federal operational ability to identify and remove noncitizens.
- Victims of serious violent crime and their families — Subtitle C creates a new federal civil remedy (with damages and fee shifting) against jurisdictions whose sanctuary policies foreseeably contributed to a removable alien’s continued presence.
- Federal law-enforcement officers — the obstruction and assault amendments add tools and higher mandatory penalties to prosecute individuals who use loud devices to disrupt operations or assault federal officers.
- Compliant state and local jurisdictions — through reallocation provisions and clearer federal standards, jurisdictions that cooperate can receive reallocated funds and reduced litigation risk compared with listed noncompliant jurisdictions.
Who Bears the Cost
- States, counties, and cities that adopt or maintain policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities — they face loss or recovery of covered funds, placement on a public noncompliance list, and exposure to civil suits under Subtitle C.
- Local detention facilities and correctional systems — new operational burdens (24-hour notifications, ongoing information sharing, recordkeeping for at least five years), potential loss of federal funding, and logistical pressure to honor detainers and coordinate transfers.
- Colleges, universities, vocational and nonacademic schools located in designated sanctuary jurisdictions — students seeking F- and M‑visas may be barred from studying at those institutions, risking enrollment and revenue impacts.
- Nonprofits involved in contentious or ambiguous organizing around public disorder — the 501(c)(3) amendment injects enforcement risk for organizations operating near the statutory line between protected advocacy and ‘promotion’ or ‘material support’ of criminal violence.
- Noncitizens subject to the new criminal provisions — increased fines, longer prison terms, and mandatory detention for illegal entry/reentry will increase detention population pressures and legal exposure.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill confronts a core dilemma: it seeks to strengthen federal immigration enforcement and protect federal officers by leveraging federal grant dollars, criminal law, and civil liability, but in doing so it forces a trade-off between national enforcement objectives and longstanding principles of local autonomy, civil liberties (notably speech and assembly), and the operational capacity of local justice and correctional systems—a trade-off that requires courts and agencies to choose between clear federal priorities and the practical, constitutional, and policy limits on imposing those priorities through funding conditions and private liability.
The bill deploys the federal spending power aggressively: conditioning a broad set of federal funds on local cooperation raises immediate constitutional questions about anti‑commandeering limits and whether the conditions are sufficiently related to the federal interests asserted. The statutory definitions—‘sanctuary policy,’ ‘constructive knowledge,’ and what constitutes a ‘material impediment’—are broad and fact‑intensive, inviting litigation over scope and over whether inclusion on a published list can (or should) operate as prima facie evidence in both administrative and civil proceedings.
Operationally, the detention‑facility mandates and mandatory detention for illegal-entry charges create significant resource and procedural burdens. Jails must add screening, 24‑hour notifications, ongoing reporting, and five‑year record retention; prosecutors and courts will confront new mandatory detention categories and longer statutory sentences, increasing pretrial and postconviction detention populations.
The private right of action ties these administrative and operational questions to civil liability: causation and foreseeability are central but hard-to-prove elements, and courts will have to elaborate how a jurisdiction’s policy can be the proximate, substantial factor in a third‑party’s criminal conduct. Separately, the 501(c)(3) amendment and the noise‑interference clause press against First Amendment boundaries: defining ‘promotion’ or ‘material support’ of criminal violence, and defining ‘loud noise’ that ‘impedes’ federal operations, risks chilling lawful protest, legal assistance, and advocacy absent careful enforcement guidance.
Finally, practical implementation depends heavily on executive-branch determinations (annual sanctuary lists, agency enforcement priorities, and reallocation decisions). That means compliance costs and litigation risk will be frontloaded on subnational actors before any definitive judicial resolution of the statute’s constitutional and statutory questions is available—producing unpredictable fiscal and operational consequences for jurisdictions nationwide.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.