Are states allowed to be sanction art cities?

1. What the question most likely asks: “sanctuary,” not “sanction art”

The commonly used term is “sanctuary city” — a non‑legal, umbrella label for jurisdictions that limit local cooperation with federal immigration authorities; there is no single statutory definition of the term, and jurisdictions’ policies vary widely in form and scope ^{[1] [6]}.

2. The basic legal landscape: federal statutes and local discretion

Congress has enacted statutes touching immigration cooperation—most notably 8 U.S.C. §1373, which restricts limits on information sharing about immigration status—but courts have repeatedly found federal efforts to force local officials into immigration‑enforcement roles can violate principles of state and local authority, leaving substantive space for sanctuary policies ^{[4] [5] [3]}.

3. Constitutional and statutory tensions — why the law is unsettled

The conflict revolves around federal supremacy over immigration versus the Tenth Amendment’s reservation of powers to states and localities; legal scholars and courts have concluded that while the federal government controls immigration enforcement, it generally cannot commandeer local officers to carry out federal duties, which underpins many judicial findings that limit federal coercion ^{[7] [5]}.

4. Federal pushback: lists, litigation, and funding threats

Recent administrations have used executive orders, public “sanctuary jurisdiction” lists, and lawsuits to pressure states, counties, and cities to change policies; the Department of Justice has published lists and filed suit against several jurisdictions, and administrations have threatened to condition federal grants on compliance—actions that have generated further litigation and mixed legal outcomes ^{[8] [4] [9]}.

5. Limits in practice: what sanctuary policies do — and do not — accomplish

Sanctuary policies are often procedural: limiting inquiries about immigration status, setting standards for honoring ICE detainers, or declining to use local resources for federal immigration enforcement; they typically do not prevent federal action on immigration where federal agents operate or where local police arrest someone for a crime, and fingerprints submitted in booking still allow federal identification in many jurisdictions ^{[6] [10] [3]}.

6. Empirical and political dimensions

Research cited by advocacy and policy groups shows mixed results on public safety and reporting; some studies find sanctuary policies increase crime reporting and have neutral or beneficial effects on crime rates, while opponents argue such policies undermine enforcement—these competing narratives fuel the political fight and shape litigation strategies on both sides ^{[1] [5] [11]}.

7. Who decides ultimately — the current reality

Absent explicit, settled Supreme Court rulings that close the doctrinal gaps, states and localities have meaningful room to adopt sanctuary policies and states have even passed sanctuary‑protective laws, but those policies are subject to federal scrutiny, potential loss of certain federal grant conditions, and litigation that can alter how policies operate in practice ^{[2] [9] [3]}.

8. Direct answer

Yes: states, counties, and cities are allowed to adopt sanctuary‑style policies because the term is not defined in federal law and local control over policing and resource allocation gives them substantial authority to limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement; however, those policies face sustained federal efforts to compel compliance through executive actions, funding conditions, administrative lists, and litigation, meaning the legal and practical permissibility is contested and evolving ^{[2] [8] [4] [3]}.