BLOC Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 1984
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Transportation and Public Works
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-03-10: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
- Last Updated
- 2025-12-05T22:54:57Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose
The legislation, titled the "Blocking Lawless Open Border Cities and States Act of 2025" (BLOC Act), aims to withhold certain federal infrastructure funding from states and their local governments (political subdivisions) that fail to implement a notification process for the release of specific undocumented immigrants from custody. It seeks to encourage cooperation with federal immigration enforcement by tying funding eligibility to compliance with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requests for information.
Key Provisions
- Notification Requirement: States and their political subdivisions must enact a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice within one year of the bill's enactment. This requires notifying the Secretary of Homeland Security (or a designee) at least 48 hours before releasing from custody an individual who:
- Is determined by DHS to not be lawfully present in the U.S. (i.e., an undocumented immigrant).
- Has been notified by DHS to the detaining authority (e.g., sheriff) about their legal status at least 48 hours before the planned release.
- Has been held in custody for at least 48 hours.
- Funding Restrictions: The Secretary of Transportation is prohibited from obligating or awarding federal funds for infrastructure projects (defined as per federal regulations under 2 CFR 184.3, generally covering construction and maintenance of public works like highways) to non-compliant political subdivisions. Funds allocated to a state cannot flow to such subdivisions.
- Effective Date and Scope: The requirement takes effect one year after enactment. It amends Chapter 6 of Title 23 of the U.S. Code, which governs federal highway funding.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Adds a new Section 612 to Title 23, U.S. Code, introducing the first direct linkage between federal highway and infrastructure funding eligibility and local cooperation on immigration detainer notifications.
- Previously, federal funding under Title 23 was not conditioned on immigration enforcement policies, though other laws (e.g., under Title 8) address sanctuary jurisdictions in limited ways. This expands enforcement by using transportation funding as leverage, without altering core immigration statutes.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The Department of Transportation (DOT) must verify compliance before awarding funds, potentially increasing administrative burdens. DHS gains enhanced local cooperation on detentions, streamlining immigration enforcement. Non-compliant states and localities may face budget shortfalls for road and bridge projects, leading to delays in maintenance or construction.
- On Citizens: Residents in affected areas could experience reduced infrastructure improvements, such as poorer roads or transit, indirectly impacting daily life and economic activity. It may deter local adoption of "sanctuary" policies (local rules limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities).
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, but it could signal a stricter U.S. stance on border enforcement, potentially straining relations with countries of origin for immigrants or influencing diplomatic discussions on migration.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- States and Local Governments: Primary targets, as political subdivisions (e.g., cities, counties) must comply or lose funding; sheriffs and detaining officials are directly involved in notifications.
- Federal Agencies: DHS (for immigration status determinations and notifications) and DOT (for funding decisions).
- Immigrants and Communities: Undocumented individuals subject to detention and potential federal transfer; immigrant advocacy groups opposing the measure for increasing deportation risks.
- Taxpayers and Businesses: Those relying on federal infrastructure dollars for jobs and economic growth in transportation sectors.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Relies on Congress's spending power (Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) to condition federal funds, similar to past laws like those under the Affordable Care Act. However, it may face challenges under the 10th Amendment (federalism), arguing it coerces states into federal immigration roles without clear statutory authority.
- Constitutional: Could raise questions about due process for detainees (e.g., prolonged holds for notifications) or equal protection if applied unevenly, though the bill focuses on administrative procedures rather than rights violations.
- Political: Heightens debates over "sanctuary jurisdictions," potentially polarizing along partisan lines—supporters view it as bolstering border security, while critics see it as punishing local autonomy. It may encourage similar funding conditions in other policy areas, like education or housing.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (1)
Recent Actions
- 2025-03-10: Referred to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit.
- 2025-03-10: Referred to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
- 2025-03-10: Introduced in House
- 2025-03-10: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Blocking Lawless Open Border Cities and States Act of 2025 — issued 2025-03-10 — PDF (3 pages)