On August 5, the Department of Justice published a list of so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions” that it claims are in violation of federal immigration law. United States Attorney General Pamela Bondi stated that the DOJ “will continue bringing litigation” against those that don’t change their policies.
The list of 18 cities, four counties, 12 states and the District of Columbia skews heavily to the left. It includes every jurisdiction that’s drawn attention for progressive drug policies that have not yet gained wider traction, such as overdose prevention centers, drug decriminalization and psychedelic therapy.
In May, President Donald Trump’s administration published its first such list, which caused widespread criticism and confusion. It included more than 600 jurisdictions, many of them misspelled or mislabeled, selected for unclear reasons. Many had supported Trump and already taken anti-immigrant stances; Huntington Beach, California, made the list despite having passed a formal resolution declaring itself a non-sanctuary city.
By way of explanation for its revised list, on August 5 the DOJ also published an accompanying list of nine “sanctuary jurisdiction characteristics” that it implied were used to guide the selection process. They mainly revolve around noncooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers, which is not a violation of federal law. The DOJ did not specify which characteristics corresponded to which jurisdictions.
Louisville, KY, announced in July that it would begin honoring 48-hour ICE detainer requests.
At the bottom of the list the DOJ noted that it had recently filed several lawsuits, listing only New York City as an example. It also noted it had pressured Louisville, Kentucky, into revoking the policies in question. Louisville had appeared on the May list, and in July the city announced it would begin honoring 48-hour ICE detainer requests. Louisville Metro Department of Corrections reportedly began implementing the new policy August 6, the day after the new list was published. Louisville is no longer on the list.
“It’s meant to intimidate,” Bill Ong Hing, founding director of the Immigration and Deportation Defense Clinic at the University of San Francisco School of Law, told Filter. “They will not bring a lawsuit—they’ve lost every lawsuit they’ve been involved in with this issue. They will try to withhold federal funds for some jurisdictions, then those jurisdictions will themselves bring lawsuits [against Trump].”
In 2018, during Trump’s first administration, California jurisdictions sued and ultimately caused a federal appeals court to determine that it was unconstitutional to withhold federal funds due to “sanctuary” policies.
“Sanctuary ordinances do not say ICE can’t come into the jurisdiction and do its work,” Ong Hing said. “It doesn’t mean if ICE asks questions of a police or sheriff’s office, that no response will be given—they’re obligated to respond under federal statutes. All it says is they won’t affirmatively cooperate. Many ordinances simply say don’t ask questions of people you encounter at the department of health or education … there’s no requirement under federal law that police departments ask us what our immigration status is.”
One consequence of these federal threats is that many people lose access to public benefits.
Across the country, an increasing number of “287(g)” agreements allow ICE to delegate immigration enforcement to state and local law enforcement agencies that are willing to assist. Every state without at least one active 287(g) agreement in place appears on the DOJ’s new list. (As of August 8, the ICE online application process for entering into a 287(g) agreement is “offline for revisions.”)
“It turns anyone participating into ICE agents roaming the streets, doing federal immigration stops,” Danny Woodward, a Julius Glickman legal fellow with the Beyond Borders Program, told Filter. “It leads to racial profiling. In 2012 the federal government got rid of this model—because of highly publicized racial profiling.”
Hasan Shafiqullah, immigration supervising attorney of the Law Reform Unit of the Legal Aid Society in New York, explained to Filter that one immediate, tangible consequence of these federal threats is that many people afraid they’ll be targeted for deportation lose access to public benefits, because they won’t show up to the recertification process.
“Let’s say I’m undocumented, I don’t qualify for any benefits, but I have US citizen children entitled under the law to get Medicaid or food stamps,” he said. “If I’m afraid to show up and recertify, what happens to the benefit? My children will [experience] food insecurity or hunger, and not get their wellness checks. It’s damaging because you’re having health and hunger outcomes that are entirely avoidable, only happening because of the chilling effect of people afraid to show up at agencies or even leave their homes.”
Image (cropped) via Immigration and Customs Enforcement
