Sanctuary Liability Act

Summary#

This bill creates a new civil cause of action for people harmed by crimes committed by noncitizens who benefitted from a locality’s “sanctuary” policy. It says certain States or local governments are “sanctuary jurisdictions” if they limit sharing immigration status or refuse to comply with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers or release notifications. The bill also conditions some federal grants on a waiver of immunity and says local officers who honor ICE detainers are treated as federal agents in related legal cases.

• Main change: Individuals (or their families) who are victims of murder, rape, or any felony can sue a State or local government for money damages if the alleged offender was an alien who benefited from a sanctuary policy and the jurisdiction failed to honor an ICE detainer or notify DHS about release.
• Causation rule: The plaintiff must show they would not have been harmed if the alien had not benefitted from the sanctuary policy.
• Limits on suits: The alien must have been arrested, convicted, or sentenced to at least one year for the crime.
• Statute of limitations: Suits must start within 10 years after the crime or the death caused by the crime.
• Grants and immunity: States or localities that accept certain federal economic or community development grants must waive immunity for these suits; community development block disaster grants are excluded.
• Cooperating officers: A local officer who complies with an ICE detainer is deemed a federal agent; the United States can be substituted as the defendant, and federal remedies would be the exclusive route in those cases. The bill says this does not protect anyone who knowingly violates civil or constitutional rights.

What it means for you#

• Victims and families

  • May be able to sue a State or local government for money damages if harmed by a qualifying crime and the government failed to honor an ICE detainer or notify DHS.
  • A prevailing plaintiff can recover reasonable attorney fees and expert costs.

• People accused of crimes

  • The bill applies only when the person charged is an “alien” (as defined in existing immigration law) and has been arrested, convicted, or sentenced to at least one year.

• States and local governments (counties, cities)

  • Could face more lawsuits if they have policies that limit sharing immigration status or refusing ICE detainers/notifications.
  • If they accept certain federal grants, they must agree to waive immunity from these sanctuary-related civil suits.

• Local law enforcement

  • Officers who comply with ICE detainers are treated by the bill as acting as agents of DHS. In legal challenges to a detention tied to a detainer, the United States may be substituted as the defendant and federal rules would apply.
  • The bill says this treatment does not protect officers who knowingly violate rights.

• Grant applicants and recipients

  • Recipients of certain federal public works and community development grants would have to waive immunity related to these claims as a condition of the grant.

Expenses#

No publicly available information on government cost estimates or fiscal notes is included with the bill text.

Possible costs that could follow from the bill (the bill text does not provide numbers):

• Increased legal and settlement costs for States and localities defending or resolving suits.
• Administrative costs for jurisdictions changing policies, tracking detainer requests, or notifying DHS.
• Potential changes in grant flows if jurisdictions refuse to accept grant terms that require waiving immunity.
• For cases where the United States is substituted as defendant, federal litigation costs could rise.

Proponents' View#

• The bill appears intended to provide a civil remedy for people harmed by crimes where the offender benefited from local policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
• It could be seen as a way to hold jurisdictions accountable if failing to honor ICE detainers or release notifications contributed to a crime.
• Conditioning certain federal grants on a waiver of immunity could be seen as a tool to encourage cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
• Treating cooperating officers as federal agents may be intended to reduce local liability when they follow ICE detainer requests.

Opponents' View#

• One concern is that the bill does not clearly explain how courts should prove that a victim “would not have been so injured” absent the sanctuary policy; proving that link may be legally difficult.
• Another concern is the potential financial and administrative burden on States and localities from increased litigation, settlements, or policy changes.
• The waiver-of-immunity condition tied to federal grants could be seen as strong federal pressure on local governments’ policy choices; the bill does not describe limits on how that pressure is applied beyond the listed grants.
• The bill may raise questions about public safety trade-offs, such as whether immigrant communities will be less willing to report crimes or cooperate with local police if they fear immigration consequences; the bill text does not address this.
• It is unclear how the bill interacts with existing federal and constitutional law on arrests, detainers, and sovereign immunity beyond the specific provisions it adds.

What is unclear:

• How courts will evaluate causation and which facts will satisfy the requirement that the plaintiff “would not have been so injured” absent the sanctuary policy.
• How broadly “sanctuary jurisdiction” will be applied to varied local practices and policies in courts.
• Any fiscal estimates or administrative guidance for implementation are not provided in the bill text.

Status note: This bill was introduced in the Senate on January 22, 2025, and referred to the Judiciary Committee.