No Community Development Block Grants for Sanctuary Cities Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 3987
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Immigration
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-06-12: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- Last Updated
- 2025-12-05T21:31:22Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
This bill, titled the "No Community Development Block Grants for Sanctuary Cities Act," aims to prevent state and local governments that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement—known as "sanctuary jurisdictions"—from receiving federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG). These grants fund local projects like housing, community facilities, and economic development.
Key Provisions
- Definition of Sanctuary Jurisdiction: Adds a new term to the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. A sanctuary jurisdiction is any state or local government with a law, policy, or practice that blocks or limits:
- Sharing information about an individual's citizenship or immigration status (legal or illegal) with federal, state, or local authorities.
- Following lawful requests from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) under the Immigration and Nationality Act (sections 236 or 287) to detain or notify about the release of individuals suspected of immigration violations (detainers).
- Exception to the Definition: A jurisdiction is not considered a sanctuary if its policy only applies to protecting victims or witnesses of crimes who voluntarily come forward, without requiring broader non-cooperation.
- Grant Ineligibility: Requires that recipients of CDBG funds certify they are not a sanctuary jurisdiction and will not become one during the grant period. This is added as a new condition for eligibility.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
- Amends section 102(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)) by inserting the new definition of "sanctuary jurisdiction."
- Modifies section 104(b) (42 U.S.C. 5304(b)) by adding a seventh eligibility criterion, making non-sanctuary status mandatory for grants. This builds on existing requirements like fair housing compliance and anti-discrimination rules.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which administers CDBG, would need to verify grantees' immigration policies, potentially increasing administrative workload and enforcement actions against non-compliant areas.
- On Citizens: Residents in sanctuary jurisdictions could lose access to federal funds for local improvements, such as affordable housing or infrastructure, affecting low- and moderate-income communities. This might strain local budgets and delay projects.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it could indirectly influence U.S. immigration policy perceptions abroad by tying domestic funding to enforcement cooperation.
- No explicit effects on federal-state relations beyond funding conditions, but it may encourage policy shifts in recipient areas.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- State and Local Governments: Especially "sanctuary" cities or states (e.g., those with policies limiting ICE cooperation), who risk losing CDBG funds and may need to revise immigration-related laws or practices.
- Federal Agencies: Primarily HUD and DHS, as they handle grant distribution and immigration detainers.
- Citizens and Communities: Low-income residents in affected areas who rely on CDBG for community services; undocumented immigrants may face indirect pressure through changed local policies.
- Law Enforcement: Local officials involved in immigration status sharing or detainer compliance.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal: Ties federal funding to immigration cooperation, which courts have upheld in past cases (e.g., as a valid exercise of Congress's spending power), but could face challenges if seen as coercive under the Tenth Amendment (states' rights). The exception for crime victims/witnesses aims to balance enforcement with public safety incentives.
- Constitutional: Raises questions about federalism—whether conditioning grants infringes on states' ability to set local policies—though similar conditions exist in other federal programs.
- Political: Likely to spark debate on immigration enforcement versus local autonomy, potentially dividing along partisan lines; introduced by Republican representatives, it reflects efforts to curb sanctuary policies amid national immigration discussions. No direct impact on individual rights like due process is outlined.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Cosponsors (5)
Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1], Rep. Buchanan, Vern [R-FL-16], Rep. Biggs, Sheri [R-SC-3], Rep. Moolenaar, John R. [R-MI-2], Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9]
Recent Actions
- 2025-06-12: Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
- 2025-06-12: Introduced in House
- 2025-06-12: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- No Community Development Block Grants for Sanctuary Cities Act — issued 2025-06-12 — PDF (3 pages)