Sanctuary City Accountability Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 1928
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Immigration
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-05-22T08:08:37Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The Sanctuary City Accountability Act aims to hold "sanctuary jurisdictions" accountable for policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. It creates a way for U.S. citizens harmed by crimes committed by non-citizens (referred to as "aliens" in the bill) to seek legal remedies directly against these jurisdictions, promoting stricter enforcement of immigration laws at the local level.
Key Provisions
- Private Right of Action: Any U.S. national can file a civil lawsuit in federal district court against a sanctuary jurisdiction if a non-citizen commits a crime against them or their immediate family member. The crime must occur in the sanctuary jurisdiction or in another location where the non-citizen later moves. Remedies include court orders to stop harmful practices (injunctive relief) or monetary compensation for damages.
- Limitation on Liability: Local governments cannot be sued under this law if they are simply following state-level laws, rules, or policies that require their actions.
- Definition of Sanctuary Jurisdiction: This term covers any state or local government (e.g., city or county) with policies that block federal immigration enforcement and protect criminals from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Specific examples include:
- Refusing or banning compliance with ICE detainers (requests to hold someone for potential deportation).
- Adding overly burdensome requirements to comply with ICE detainers.
- Preventing ICE from interviewing jailed non-citizens.
- Blocking communication or information sharing between local officials and federal immigration officers.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- This bill adds a new section (Section 107) to Title I of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which governs U.S. immigration rules. Previously, the INA did not include a private right of action allowing individuals to sue local governments directly for immigration-related harms.
- It shifts some enforcement responsibility from federal agencies like ICE to private citizens, enabling lawsuits as a tool to challenge sanctuary policies without relying solely on government action.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: Local and state governments designated as sanctuary jurisdictions could face increased civil lawsuits, leading to higher legal costs, policy changes to avoid liability, and potential conflicts with federal authorities. ICE might see indirect benefits through greater local cooperation prompted by litigation fears.
- On Citizens: U.S. nationals who are victims of crimes by non-citizens gain a new avenue for justice and compensation, potentially deterring sanctuary policies but also risking a flood of litigation that could strain court resources.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could indirectly affect perceptions of U.S. immigration enforcement by emphasizing a tougher stance on protecting citizens from crimes by non-citizens, possibly influencing diplomatic discussions on migration.
- Broader effects might include reduced adoption of sanctuary policies nationwide, altering how communities handle immigration status in criminal cases.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- U.S. Nationals: Primary beneficiaries as potential plaintiffs seeking remedies for crimes.
- Sanctuary Jurisdictions (States and Local Governments): Directly targeted for lawsuits, facing financial and operational risks.
- Non-Citizens (Aliens): Could experience heightened scrutiny and deportation risks if sanctuary protections are weakened through litigation.
- Federal Immigration Agencies (e.g., ICE): Gain indirect support for enforcement efforts without bearing the full litigation burden.
- Crime Victims and Families: Immediate family members of U.S. nationals may qualify for protections under the private action.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Introduces a novel civil enforcement mechanism in immigration law, potentially leading to a surge in federal court cases. Courts may need to interpret the broad definition of "sanctuary jurisdiction" and balance it against existing anti-discrimination laws.
- Constitutional Implications: Raises questions about federalism—the division of powers between federal and state/local governments—since it imposes federal liability on local policies. It could spark challenges under the Tenth Amendment (reserving powers to states) or claims of overreach in private enforcement of federal law.
- Political Implications: The bill is likely to polarize debates on immigration, with supporters viewing it as a tool for public safety and critics seeing it as punitive toward progressive jurisdictions. Its passage could influence future elections and state-federal relations on immigration issues.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (7)
Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26], Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2], Rep. Gooden, Lance [R-TX-5], Rep. Haridopolos, Mike [R-FL-8], Rep. Feenstra, Randy [R-IA-4], Rep. Brecheen, Josh [R-OK-2], Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1]
Recent Actions
- 2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
- 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Sanctuary City Accountability Act — issued 2025-03-06 — PDF (3 pages)