BLOC Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 1913
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Transportation and Public Works
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2026-03-07: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
- Last Updated
- 2026-06-03T08:08:12Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The BLOC Act (H.R. 1913) aims to withhold certain federal transportation funding from states and their political subdivisions (like cities or counties) that do not implement a process to notify the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) before releasing certain non-citizens who are not lawfully present in the U.S. from custody. This is intended to encourage cooperation with federal immigration enforcement by tying funding to compliance.
Key Provisions
- Notification Requirement: Within one year of the bill's enactment, states and their political subdivisions must enact a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice requiring officials to notify the DHS Secretary (or designee) at least 48 hours before releasing an individual from custody if:
- DHS has determined the individual is not lawfully present in the U.S. (meaning they lack legal authorization to be in the country).
- DHS informed the local sheriff or detaining agency of the individual's status at least 48 hours before the planned release.
- The individual has been held in custody for at least 48 hours.
- Funding Restrictions: The Secretary of Transportation cannot allocate federal funds for infrastructure projects (including highway construction) to non-compliant political subdivisions. Funds awarded to a state also cannot flow to such subdivisions.
- Definition of Infrastructure Project: Refers to projects as defined in federal regulations (2 CFR 184.3), which generally include construction, improvement, or maintenance of public facilities like roads and bridges.
- Effective Date and Scope: Applies to new obligations or awards of funds after the one-year compliance period.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Amends Chapter 6 of Title 23, U.S. Code (which governs federal highway funding), by adding a new Section 612 on funding ineligibility for "sanctuary jurisdictions" (local areas that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement).
- Introduces a direct link between federal transportation funding and local immigration notification practices, which was not previously tied in this way under Title 23.
- Requires a clerical update to the chapter's table of contents to include the new section.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The Department of Transportation (DOT) will face administrative burdens in verifying compliance and withholding funds, potentially leading to delays in project approvals. DHS gains a mechanism for faster coordination with local law enforcement on detentions.
- On Citizens and Local Governments: States and localities relying on federal highway funds (which total billions annually) may need to revise policies, increasing costs for legal changes or enforcement. Citizens in affected areas could see reduced infrastructure improvements, like road repairs, if funds are cut.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, but it could indirectly affect U.S. relations with countries of origin for non-citizens by strengthening deportation processes, potentially straining diplomatic ties if seen as overly aggressive immigration enforcement.
- Broader Effects: May pressure "sanctuary" policies in urban areas, leading to more detentions and deportations of non-citizens, while possibly increasing local tensions over immigration.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- State and Local Governments: Primary targets, especially political subdivisions (e.g., cities, counties) that must comply or lose funding; includes sheriffs and detaining agencies.
- Federal Agencies: DOT (fund allocation) and DHS (immigration status determinations and notifications).
- Non-Citizens: Individuals not lawfully present in the U.S. who are detained locally, facing potential extended holds for federal handover.
- Taxpayers and Infrastructure Users: Residents in non-compliant areas who depend on federally funded projects for transportation safety and economic benefits.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Could face challenges under the 10th Amendment (states' rights to manage local law enforcement without federal mandates), as it conditions funding on policy changes—similar to past debates over sanctuary city funding cuts. Courts may scrutinize if the conditions are "unconstitutional coercion" (per Supreme Court precedents like NFIB v. Sebelius on Medicaid expansion).
- Constitutional: Raises federalism concerns by using spending power to influence state immigration practices, potentially conflicting with the anti-commandeering doctrine (federal government cannot force states to enforce federal laws, as in Printz v. United States).
- Political: Likely to spark partisan divides, with supporters viewing it as enhancing border security and opponents seeing it as punitive toward progressive jurisdictions; may influence elections in border or urban areas by highlighting immigration enforcement.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Recent Actions
- 2026-03-07: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
- 2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
- 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Blocking Lawless Open Border Cities and States — issued 2025-03-06 — PDF (3 pages)