Which U.S. jurisdictions have the strictest sanctuary policies and what exceptions do they include for violent felonies?
Executive summary
Sanctuary policies in the United States are a patchwork: a handful of cities and some states have the most expansive non-cooperation rules, while many others adopt narrower, conditional limits on cooperation with federal immigration authorities; those strictest local ordinances commonly carve out exceptions for people convicted of serious or violent felonies [1] [2]. Federal agencies and advocacy groups disagree about how many and which jurisdictions qualify as “strict,” reflecting differences in definitions, political agendas, and evolving federal scrutiny including DOJ and DHS publications identifying jurisdictions that impede federal enforcement [3] [4] [5].
1. What “strictest” means in practice — legal posture versus operational effect
The term “strictest” can refer either to formal ordinances that broadly prohibit information-sharing or honoring ICE detainers, or to operational practices that in effect limit cooperation; there is no single legal definition and jurisdictions vary widely in scope and mechanism [2]. Legal analyses note the federal government cannot force localities to comply with detainers and that courts have repeatedly emphasized limits on federal authority in this area, which means a “strict” policy often simply narrows the circumstances under which local law enforcement will assist ICE rather than creating blanket immunity [1] [2].
2. Leading examples of expansive sanctuary jurisdictions and contested counts
Some long-standing municipal policies are often cited as among the most expansive: San Francisco’s “Due Process for All” ordinance, in place since 1989 and strengthened in 2013, has been singled out as a model of restrictive cooperation with federal immigration authorities [6]. Advocacy and research organizations provide differing tallies of sanctuary states and localities — FAIR counts 17 states as sanctuary or partially so [7], the Center for Immigration Studies and other trackers produce alternative lists and maps [5] [8] — and the Justice Department has published its own list of “sanctuary jurisdictions” subject to federal review and litigation, underscoring the political contest over which places qualify [3] [9].
3. How strict policies treat violent felonies — common exceptions and thresholds
Many sanctuary ordinances that otherwise limit cooperation explicitly allow notification to federal authorities or compliance with detainers when an individual has been convicted of, or faces charges for, serious or violent crimes; some policies authorize honoring detainers only for those specific categories of convictions [1]. The American Immigration Council and its detailed legal overviews explain that sanctuary jurisdictions frequently adopt policies that “only honor detainers if the individual in question has been convicted of a serious or violent crime,” reflecting an effort to balance community-policing goals with public-safety concerns [1] [2].
4. Evidence and disputes about whether sanctuary policies shield violent offenders
Empirical research cited by advocates and scholars complicates claims that sanctuary rules broadly shelter violent offenders: a National Academy of Sciences study covering 2010–2015 found that sanctuary policies neither increased crime rates nor prevented the deportations of people with violent convictions during that period, a finding highlighted by the American Immigration Council [1] [2]. Opposing voices — including federal officials and DHS/DOJ statements — assert sanctuary policies endanger communities and point to jurisdictions they say obstruct federal enforcement, a claim the departments have used to justify lists and litigation [3] [4].
5. The political and legal tug-of-war shaping exceptions and enforcement
The landscape is dynamic: some states and localities have statutory protections or formal ordinances limiting cooperation, while federal agencies have responded with designation lists and lawsuits seeking compliance, illustrating a clash between local control and federal immigration priorities [3] [4]. Counting and characterizing “strict” sanctuary jurisdictions depends on source and purpose — advocacy groups, federal agencies and independent researchers each use different criteria and carry implicit agendas — so any catalogue of strict jurisdictions and their violent-felony exceptions must be read against that contested backdrop [8] [5] [7].