Sanctuary Penalty and Public Protection Act of 2025

Bill Number

H.R. 5005

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 1

Policy Area

Immigration

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2025-08-19: 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

2026-05-21T08:07:27Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose

The Sanctuary Penalty and Public Protection Act of 2025 aims to address policies in certain state and local governments—often called "sanctuary jurisdictions"—that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. It seeks to create transparency through a public database and impose financial penalties by withholding federal funds from these jurisdictions to encourage compliance with federal immigration laws.

Key Provisions

• Database Creation and Maintenance: Within 90 days of enactment, the Secretary of Homeland Security (through the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE) and the Attorney General must jointly develop a publicly available database. This database will list state or local government entities identified as "sanctuary jurisdictions" and will be updated at least quarterly.
• Criteria for Inclusion in the Database: A jurisdiction qualifies as a sanctuary if it has laws, regulations, policies, or practices that:
• Conflict with or violate specific federal immigration requirements, such as:
• Section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (IIRIRA), which mandates communication between state/local officials and federal immigration authorities about individuals' immigration status.
• Section 274(a)(1)(A)(iii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which prohibits harboring or shielding undocumented immigrants from detection.
• Section 277 of the INA, which bars aiding or assisting illegal entry into the U.S.
• Prohibit or restrict state/local law enforcement from:
• Honoring ICE detainers (requests to hold individuals for up to 48 hours beyond their release date for immigration processing).
• Arresting or detaining individuals as authorized under section 439 of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), which allows state/local officers to arrest undocumented immigrants for certain crimes.
• Prevent federal officials from interviewing jailed individuals to assess their immigration status or potential involvement in crimes.
• Funding Prohibition: After enactment, no federal funds can be allocated or spent on sanctuary jurisdictions, effectively cutting off federal financial support for their operations or programs.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• This bill amends IIRIRA (a 1996 law that requires state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement) by inserting a new section 642A, which introduces the database and funding ban. Previously, IIRIRA focused on mandating communication but did not include a public tracking system or automatic funding penalties for non-compliance.
• It expands enforcement tools by tying federal funding directly to immigration cooperation, building on but going beyond existing restrictions in laws like IIRIRA and the INA, which already prohibit certain obstructive practices but lack the database or blanket funding cutoff.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Federal agencies like DHS and the Department of Justice (DOJ) will face new administrative burdens to build and maintain the database, potentially requiring additional resources for monitoring and updates. State and local governments deemed sanctuaries could lose billions in federal grants (e.g., for education, housing, or law enforcement), leading to budget shortfalls and reduced public services.
• On Citizens: Residents in sanctuary jurisdictions, including U.S. citizens, may experience cuts to federally funded programs like community development or emergency services, indirectly affecting daily life and local economies. It could also heighten tensions in immigrant communities by increasing immigration enforcement visibility.
• On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, though it may signal a stricter U.S. stance on immigration to other countries, potentially complicating diplomatic efforts on migration issues.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• State and Local Governments: Primary targets, especially those with sanctuary policies (e.g., cities like San Francisco or states like California), which could face severe financial penalties.
• Federal Agencies: DHS (particularly ICE) and DOJ, responsible for database operations and enforcement.
• Law Enforcement: State and local police and sheriffs, whose operations may be restricted or incentivized to align with federal immigration priorities.
• Immigrants and Communities: Undocumented immigrants may face increased risk of detention or deportation due to pressured local cooperation; legal residents and citizens in affected areas could see service disruptions.
• Taxpayers: Federal and state, as funding shifts could redirect resources or lead to higher local taxes to offset losses.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal Implications: The funding prohibition could trigger lawsuits under the Spending Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 8), which allows Congress to attach conditions to federal funds but requires them to be clear and not overly coercive. Challenges may argue it violates the 10th Amendment by infringing on state sovereignty over local policing.
• Constitutional Implications: Raises federalism concerns, as it pressures states and localities to enforce federal immigration laws, potentially conflicting with principles of divided powers between federal and state governments.
• Political Implications: Likely to polarize debates on immigration, with supporters viewing it as enhancing public safety and rule of law, while opponents may see it as punitive overreach that undermines community trust in law enforcement. As an introduced bill (H.R. 5005, 119th Congress), its passage would depend on congressional majorities and could influence broader immigration reform efforts.

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

Sponsor

Rep. Roy, Chip [R-TX-21]

Cosponsors (29)

Rep. Weber, Randy K. Sr. [R-TX-14], Rep. McCaul, Michael T. [R-TX-10], Rep. Tiffany, Thomas P. [R-WI-7], Rep. Crane, Elijah [R-AZ-2], Rep. Norman, Ralph [R-SC-5], Rep. Gosar, Paul A. [R-AZ-9], Rep. Harris, Andy [R-MD-1], Rep. Babin, Brian [R-TX-36], Rep. Clyde, Andrew S. [R-GA-9], Rep. Mace, Nancy [R-SC-1], Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5], Rep. Donalds, Byron [R-FL-19], Rep. Boebert, Lauren [R-CO-4], Rep. Fulcher, Russ [R-ID-1], Rep. Cline, Ben [R-VA-6], Rep. Biggs, Andy [R-AZ-5], Rep. Brecheen, Josh [R-OK-2], Rep. Burlison, Eric [R-MO-7], Rep. Self, Keith [R-TX-3], Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3], Rep. Gill, Brandon [R-TX-26], Rep. Miller, Mary E. [R-IL-15], Rep. Perry, Scott [R-PA-10], Rep. Biggs, Sheri [R-SC-3], Rep. Cloud, Michael [R-TX-27], Rep. Harris, Mark [R-NC-8], Rep. Rulli, Michael A. [R-OH-6], Rep. Griffith, H. Morgan [R-VA-9], Rep. Moore, Barry [R-AL-1]

Recent Actions

• 2025-08-19: 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.
• 2025-08-19: 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.
• 2025-08-19: Introduced in House
• 2025-08-19: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Sanctuary Penalty and Public Protection Act of 2025 — issued 2025-08-19 — PDF (4 pages)