No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act

Bill Number: H.R. 205
Origin Chamber: House
Congress: 119th Congress, Session 1
Policy Area: Immigration
Status: Introduced
Latest Action: 2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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.
Last Updated: 2025-06-28T08:06:21Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The "No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act" (H.R. 205) aims to prevent the allocation of federal money through congressional earmarks—specific funding requests inserted into spending bills—to states or local governments designated as "sanctuary jurisdictions." These are areas with policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. The goal is to discourage such policies by tying them to the loss of targeted federal funds.

Key Provisions

Prohibition on Funding (Section 2): Federal funds cannot be used for any congressional earmark directed to a sanctuary jurisdiction. A "congressional earmark" is defined as a provision in a bill that directs federal funds to a specific recipient, project, or location, per the U.S. House of Representatives' rules (Rule XXI, clause 9(e)).
Definition of Sanctuary Jurisdiction (Section 3): A state or local government qualifies as a sanctuary jurisdiction if it has laws, rules, or practices that block or limit:
Sharing information about an individual's citizenship or immigration status (legal or illegal) with federal, state, or local authorities.
Following valid requests from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the Immigration and Nationality Act (sections 236 or 287, which cover detaining or notifying about the release of individuals suspected of immigration violations).
Exception: A jurisdiction is not considered a sanctuary if its policy only applies to protecting victims or witnesses of crimes who come forward to report offenses, allowing non-cooperation in those specific cases.
Effective Date (Section 4): The law takes effect starting in fiscal year 2026 (October 1, 2025) and applies to all future fiscal years.
Short Title (Section 1): The act is formally titled the "No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act."

Significant Changes to Existing Law

This bill introduces a new restriction on federal spending, specifically targeting congressional earmarks—a process that has been reformed in recent years to increase transparency but not previously linked to immigration cooperation. It builds on broader efforts to withhold federal grants from sanctuary jurisdictions (e.g., under existing laws like 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which requires information sharing on immigration status) but uniquely focuses on earmarks, which are often used for local projects like infrastructure or community programs. No prior law explicitly bans earmarks based on sanctuary status.

Potential Impacts

On Government Agencies: The U.S. House Committees on Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform would oversee implementation, potentially increasing administrative burdens to identify and track sanctuary jurisdictions. DHS may see indirect effects through more state/local compliance with its requests, easing immigration enforcement.
On Citizens: Residents in sanctuary jurisdictions could face reduced access to federal funding for local projects (e.g., roads, schools, or public services), potentially affecting community services. Immigrants in these areas might experience heightened scrutiny or changes in local protections against deportation.
On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could signal a stricter U.S. stance on immigration, influencing perceptions among countries with significant migrant populations.
Broader Effects: Sanctuary jurisdictions might alter policies to regain funding eligibility, leading to shifts in local law enforcement practices and community trust in government.

Main Stakeholders Affected

Sanctuary Jurisdictions: States (e.g., California) and cities (e.g., New York, San Francisco) with protective immigration policies, which could lose earmarked funds for essential projects.
Federal Government: Congress (members requesting earmarks), DHS (enforcement arm), and agencies distributing funds, who must enforce the ban.
Immigrants and Communities: Undocumented individuals and advocacy groups, as reduced local protections could increase deportation risks; also, citizens in affected areas relying on funded services.
Law Enforcement: Local police and officials, who may need to adjust information-sharing practices to avoid funding cuts.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

Legal Implications: The bill could face court challenges over enforcement mechanisms, such as how to certify sanctuary status, and potential violations of anti-commandeering principles (where federal law cannot force states to enforce federal policies). It aligns with existing immigration statutes but may require new regulations for compliance.
Constitutional Implications: Relies on Congress's spending power (Article I, Section 8) to condition funds on policy changes, but critics might argue it infringes on states' rights under the 10th Amendment by pressuring local autonomy in immigration matters—a recurring tension in federalism debates.
Political Implications: Reinforces partisan divides on immigration, potentially pressuring Democratic-led sanctuary areas while appealing to Republican priorities on border security. It could influence future appropriations debates and local elections in affected regions, without altering broader federal grant programs.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Van Duyne, Beth [R-TX-24]

Cosponsors (7)

Rep. Ellzey, Jake [R-TX-6], Rep. Guest, Michael [R-MS-3], Rep. Wied, Tony [R-WI-8], Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. Rulli, Michael A. [R-OH-6], Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19], Rep. Steube, W. Gregory [R-FL-17]

Recent Actions

2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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.
2025-01-03: Referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, 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.
2025-01-03: Introduced in House
2025-01-03: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

No Congressional Funds for Sanctuary Cities Act — issued 2025-01-03 — PDF (3 pages)