No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act
đź“ť TL;DR
This bill prohibits federal funding for congressional earmarks (targeted spending provisions) directed to sanctuary cities starting in fiscal year 2026. It defines sanctuary jurisdictions as those that restrict immigration information sharing or don't comply with federal detainer requests, with an exception for policies protecting crime victims and witnesses.
Sign in to view AI summaries
Get plain English explanations of what this bill actually does.
Sign in with XPlain English Explanation
H.R. 10557, the "No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act," prohibits the use of federal funds for congressional earmarks that are specifically targeted to states or local governments classified as "sanctuary jurisdictions." Introduced by Rep. Van Duyne on December 20, 2024, this bill represents another attempt by Congress to create financial incentives for local jurisdictions to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. The legislation builds on ongoing debates about sanctuary policies, where some local governments limit their cooperation with federal immigration authorities, particularly regarding information sharing and immigration detention requests. This bill specifically targets earmarks—directed spending provisions that benefit particular localities—as the mechanism for withholding federal support from sanctuary jurisdictions.
Detailed Analysis
The bill operates through a straightforward prohibition mechanism outlined in Section 2(a), which creates a blanket ban on using federal funds for congressional earmarks directed to sanctuary jurisdictions. The enforcement mechanism relies on the existing House rules definition of "congressional earmark" found in clause 9(e) of rule XXI, which typically covers targeted spending provisions that benefit specific localities, organizations, or narrow geographic areas. This approach is narrower than some previous sanctuary city legislation, as it only affects earmarked funds rather than all federal funding streams.
Section 3 provides a detailed two-part definition of "sanctuary jurisdiction" that focuses on specific behaviors rather than general non-cooperation policies. The definition targets jurisdictions that prohibit or restrict information sharing about individuals' immigration status with federal, state, or local entities, as well as those that don't comply with Department of Homeland Security detainer requests made under sections 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. These sections govern detention and removal proceedings, making compliance with detainers a key federal immigration enforcement tool.
Crucially, Section 3(b) includes an exception that prevents jurisdictions from being classified as sanctuary cities solely based on policies protecting crime victims and witnesses. This carve-out acknowledges law enforcement arguments that immigrant cooperation in criminal investigations serves public safety interests. However, the exception is narrow—it only applies when the protected individual "comes forward as a victim or witness," which could create interpretive challenges about what constitutes "coming forward."
The bill's effective date provision in Section 4 delays implementation until fiscal year 2026, providing a transition period for jurisdictions to modify their policies if they wish to remain eligible for earmarked funding. This delay also means the legislation would not affect earmarks already approved for FY 2025, reducing immediate disruption while giving localities time to assess their priorities between maintaining sanctuary policies and accessing earmarked federal funds.
🎯 Key Provisions
Earmark Funding Prohibition: Creates a blanket ban on using federal funds for congressional earmarks that target sanctuary jurisdictions. This applies only to earmarks as defined by House rules, not broader federal funding streams. (Section 2(a) - 'No Federal funds may be used for a congressional earmark targeted to a State or unit of local government which is a sanctuary jurisdiction.')
Information Sharing Restrictions Definition: Defines sanctuary jurisdictions as those that prohibit or restrict sharing citizenship or immigration status information with federal, state, or local government entities. (Section 3(a)(1) - jurisdictions that prohibit 'sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any Federal, State, or local government entity information regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or unlawful) of any individual')
Immigration Detainer Non-Compliance: Includes jurisdictions that don't comply with DHS detainer requests or notification requirements as sanctuary jurisdictions subject to the earmark prohibition. (Section 3(a)(2) - jurisdictions that restrict 'complying with a request lawfully made by the Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act')
Crime Victim and Witness Protection Exception: Provides an exception for policies that protect individuals who come forward as victims or witnesses to criminal offenses, preventing such policies alone from triggering sanctuary jurisdiction status. (Section 3(b) - exception for policies regarding 'an individual who comes forward as a victim or a witness to a criminal offense')
Delayed Implementation: Delays the effective date until fiscal year 2026, providing jurisdictions time to adjust policies and protecting already-approved FY 2025 earmarks. (Section 4 - 'This Act applies with respect to fiscal year 2026 and each succeeding fiscal year')
House Rules Integration: Incorporates the existing House definition of congressional earmarks rather than creating a new definition, linking the bill to established legislative procedures. (Section 2(b) - 'congressional earmark' has the meaning given such term under clause 9(e) of rule XXI of the Rules of the House of Representatives')
đź‘Ą Impact Analysis
Direct Effects If enacted, this bill would immediately prohibit federal funding for any congressional earmarks directed to sanctuary jurisdictions beginning in fiscal year 2026. Sanctuary jurisdictions would face a choice between maintaining their current immigration policies or modifying them to remain eligible for earmarked federal funding. The financial impact would vary significantly by jurisdiction, depending on how much earmarked funding they typically receive. Some localities might lose millions in targeted federal support for infrastructure, community development, or other local priorities.
The bill could also create administrative complexity as federal agencies would need to determine which jurisdictions qualify as sanctuary cities under the bill's specific definition. This determination process could become contentious, particularly regarding the crime victim exception, and might require ongoing monitoring of local policies. Additionally, the narrow focus on earmarks means that sanctuary jurisdictions would continue receiving other forms of federal funding, including formula grants and entitlement programs.
Indirect Effects The legislation could incentivize some local jurisdictions to modify their sanctuary policies to maintain eligibility for earmarked funding, potentially increasing cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Conversely, it might prompt some jurisdictions to double down on sanctuary policies while seeking alternative funding sources. The bill could also influence the broader political debate about sanctuary policies by creating a concrete financial consequence, potentially affecting local elections and policy discussions in affected communities.
Affected Groups - Sanctuary cities and counties - State governments with sanctuary policies - Immigrant communities - Local law enforcement agencies - Crime victims and witnesses - Members of Congress who sponsor earmarks - Federal agencies administering earmark funds
Fiscal Impact The bill does not specify direct costs or funding mechanisms, as it operates by prohibiting existing expenditures rather than creating new spending. The fiscal impact would be realized through reduced federal expenditures on earmarks to sanctuary jurisdictions, though the total amount would depend on how many jurisdictions are classified as sanctuary cities and how much earmarked funding they would otherwise receive. The bill could generate administrative costs for federal agencies required to determine sanctuary jurisdiction status and monitor compliance, but these costs are not quantified in the legislation. The delayed effective date until FY 2026 means no immediate fiscal impact on current appropriations.
đź“‹ Latest Action
12/20/2024
Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Accountability, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.