Which states have passed laws banning sanctuary ordinances and how have cities within those states adapted?
Executive summary
Several states have enacted laws that preempt or expressly ban local “sanctuary” ordinances — a trend documented in legal reviews and advocacy maps that count at least nine states with explicit preemption and broader tallies that reached a dozen by early 2025 — and cities in those states have responded in varied ways from rolling back local policies to litigation and procedural workarounds [1] [2] [3]. The legal fight is layered: there is no single federal definition of “sanctuary,” Congress and federal agencies use different criteria, and both state preemption and federal pressure (DOJ/DHS lists and grant conditions) shape municipal choices [4] [5] immigration-law" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[6].
1. Which states have banned sanctuary ordinances — the patchwork on the books
Scholarly and policy sources document a patchwork of state statutes that bar municipal policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, with at least nine states identified by a National Institutes of Health–hosted legal review as having statutes outlawing some form of sanctuary policies and other trackers and media outlets reporting as many as 12–13 states by early 2025 [1] [2] [3]. Specific recent examples in the reporting include New Hampshire, where Governor Kelly Ayotte signed bills described as banning sanctuary cities that took effect in January 2026 [7] [8], and North Carolina, which long ago enacted a ban on sanctuary jurisdictions and later expanded enforcement tools [9]. State statutes differ in scope and language: some require cooperation or information-sharing with federal agencies, while others tie fiscal penalties or deny local benefits to noncompliant municipalities [1].
2. How cities adapted — rollback, litigation, and quiet compliance
Cities confronted by state bans have pursued three broad responses documented in federal and local reporting: rescinding or modifying local policies to avoid penalties or federal targeting, challenging state or federal actions in court, or shifting practices to maintain community trust while complying with new legal constraints [5] [10]. The Justice Department’s public list and legal threats have pushed some cities to revoke sanctuary policies — Louisville’s mayor agreed to rescind policies after DOJ pressure, illustrating how federal leverage interacts with state preemption [5]. In New Hampshire, formerly self-declared sanctuary municipalities such as Hanover and Lebanon had to change policies after federal scrutiny, showing municipalities sometimes yield under combined federal-state pressure [7].
3. Legal fault lines — preemption, federal statutes, and ambiguous definitions
The legal terrain is contested: Congress’ CRS and Library of Congress overviews stress there is no uniform federal statutory definition of “sanctuary jurisdiction,” and highlight 8 U.S.C. §1373 as a focal point — a statute about information-sharing that has been central to enforcement threats and grant conditioning [4] [11]. State preemption statutes rely on longstanding municipal law doctrines that state law supersedes inconsistent local ordinances, a principle courts have applied in disputes over state bans on sanctuary policies and other local regulations [12]. Scholarly reviews emphasize the heterogeneity of state laws — some narrowly target law-enforcement cooperation, others broadly restrict municipal benefits or services — which produces divergent municipal consequences [1].
4. Political narratives and hidden agendas shaping the debate
The push to ban sanctuary ordinances is framed by backers as a public-safety measure and by opponents as an assault on local autonomy and community trust; federal lists and executive orders frame sanctuary jurisdictions as threats to law enforcement, while immigrant-rights groups and some municipal associations warn that preemption chills public-health and policing trust [6] [10] [8]. Advocacy maps and congressional bills further politicize the issue — some federal lawmakers and interest groups press for nationwide bans, an agenda that aligns with tougher immigration enforcement priorities and affects litigation strategies [13] [3]. Reporting shows municipalities and advocacy groups frequently argue that preemption statutes carry implicit aims to shift enforcement burdens to local governments and to deter local protective measures [1] [14].
5. What remains uncertain — enforcement, real-world impact, and ongoing litigation
Even where bans exist on paper, their practical impact varies and remains contested: some courts have blocked or narrowed enforcement of federal conditions on grants, municipalities contest state authority in litigation, and policy analysts note the difference between nominal compliance and on-the-ground practice — areas not fully resolved in the cited reporting [10] [1]. Federal lists and state statutes continue to evolve, and reporting indicates both litigation and administrative efforts will determine how strictly bans constrain city-level policies going forward [5] [4].