What mechanisms has the Department of Justice used to designate sanctuary jurisdictions and how have cities responded?
Executive summary
The Department of Justice has used executive orders, published “sanctuary jurisdiction” characteristics, and a formal list to identify states, counties and cities it says materially impede federal immigration enforcement, and has paired that designation with threats of litigation and withholding of federal grants; the tactic has produced political pushback, legal challenges, and negotiations with local officials seeking removal or clarification [1][2][3]. Cities and states have responded by disputing the factual basis of listings, litigating, lobbying for removal from lists, and publicly defending local policies as lawful exercises of local authority or public-safety decisions [4][5][6].
1. How the federal government put designation on institutional footing
The current designation framework flows from a presidential executive order directing DOJ (in coordination with DHS) to identify jurisdictions whose laws, ordinances, or policies “materially impede” federal immigration statutes and regulations; DOJ subsequently published criteria—what it calls “sanctuary jurisdiction characteristics”—and a list of jurisdictions meeting that standard [1][2][3].
2. The concrete mechanisms DOJ has used to mark and pressure jurisdictions
DOJ’s toolbox has included publicly posting a list of designated jurisdictions, sending formal letters notifying jurisdictions of their status and requesting remedial commitments, announcing an intent to litigate, and signaling the potential to deny DOJ grants to listed jurisdictions under the executive order’s funding directives [5][2][1][7].
3. What DOJ counts as evidence — the “characteristics” and review process
The department says it reviewed documented laws, ordinances and executive directives and identified characteristics such as public declarations of sanctuary status, local laws limiting information-sharing with federal immigration agencies, official training that declines cooperation with ICE, and prohibitions on using local funds for immigration enforcement [2][6]. DOJ also framed the list as subject to regular review, allowing jurisdictions to respond and potentially remediate policies for removal [2][5].
4. Litigation, grant threats, and administrative follow-through
DOJ has paired the list with explicit legal action—filing lawsuits against several jurisdictions and promising more litigation—and with the administrative threat of withholding or reevaluating federal grant awards as a coercive lever to force compliance [1][7][4]. The department’s public statements emphasize that the designations aim to “restore the enforcement of United States law,” language that signals both legal and political intent [1].
5. Local responses: pushback, remediation efforts, and political posture
Local reactions have varied: some elected officials have publicly rejected the label and defended local policies as protecting public safety or complying with state law, others have lobbied DOJ to be removed from earlier, broader lists, and some counties successfully persuaded federal officials to amend prior listings after outreach [8][6][5]. Mayors and state leaders in places like Boston, Denver and Albuquerque publicly disputed selections and emphasized cooperation with federal law where it occurs, while some counties sought to demonstrate remedial steps to avoid litigation or funding penalties [8][9][6].
6. Legal and advocacy critiques of the designation strategy
Legal observers and advocacy groups argue the DOJ criteria blur lawful local governance—such as limits on local participation in federal immigration enforcement—and that local police are not legally required to execute immigration law, making the label overbroad or politically motivated; those critiques have been echoed in litigation where judges have blocked related funding-withholding efforts in prior rounds [10][7][4]. Advocates also point to administrative errors and a withdrawn initial DHS list as evidence of sloppiness and partisan targeting in the rollouts [11][5].
7. Stakes and the road ahead
The immediate mechanisms—designation, letters demanding remediation, grant-review threats, and litigation—have already produced a mix of legal resistance, negotiation, and reputational fallout for jurisdictions, and DOJ’s stated plan to review and update the list keeps the issue dynamic; however, the durability of these designations will depend on outcomes in court, the ability of localities to demonstrate compliance or legal defenses, and ongoing political calculations on both sides [2][4][5].