Sanctuary cities
Executive summary
The Justice Department has published a formal list of “sanctuary jurisdictions” after President Trump’s April 28, 2025 Executive Order 14287; the DOJ says the list will be updated and can include states, counties and cities that “materially impede” federal immigration enforcement [1] [2]. Cities, counties and states push back, filing lawsuits and citing public-safety and civil‑rights rationales; advocacy groups and municipal coalitions say litigation and federal funding threats have already produced court blocks and coordinated legal responses [3] [4] [2].
1. What the federal list says and why it matters
The Department of Justice published a list identifying jurisdictions as “sanctuary” based on criteria such as non‑cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, public declarations of sanctuary status, providing federally‑prohibited benefits to undocumented immigrants, and policies restricting use of local resources for federal enforcement; the DOJ says the list will be reviewed regularly and jurisdictions will be able to respond to placement on it [2]. The administration frames the list as a tool to enforce Executive Order 14287—“Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens”—and to justify litigation or funding actions against named jurisdictions [1] [2].
2. Federal enforcement, litigation, and political strategy
DOJ officials and allies describe sanctuary policies as obstructing federal law and a justification for lawsuits; the department has already sued jurisdictions including New York City and indicates it will continue litigation to compel compliance [1]. Congressional and executive proposals extend beyond lawsuits: members of Congress are proposing bills to strip or recoup federal funds from sanctuary jurisdictions and to relocate federal offices if necessary, signaling a multi‑front pressure strategy [5] [6].
3. How local governments and advocates respond
Cities, counties and state coalitions call the federal push coercive and unconstitutional and have filed lawsuits to block funding cuts and other penalties; a coalition led by San Francisco and other localities challenged the administration’s attempts, and at least one federal judge blocked efforts to withhold federal funds from 16 jurisdictions [3] [4]. Municipal associations have sought clarification about the DOJ’s methodology and warned of legal and operational conflicts for local law enforcement complying with both state law and federal detainer requests [7].
4. What “sanctuary” means — definitions and variation
There is no single legal definition; the DOJ’s criteria include express non‑cooperation and policy measures that “materially impede” federal enforcement, while advocacy groups and researchers use broader or narrower lists depending on local ordinances, law enforcement guidance, and state-level directives [2] [8]. Independent trackers and think tanks produce differing tallies—reports cited in contemporary coverage list dozens to hundreds of jurisdictions depending on methodology—so the phrase “sanctuary” encompasses a mix of symbolic resolutions, administrative guidance, and legally binding ordinances [8] [9].
5. Stakes for public safety, civil rights, and budgets
Proponents of federal action argue sanctuary policies endanger citizens and obstruct removal of criminal non‑citizens; sponsors of bills like the Recouping Funds from Sanctuary Cities Act frame funding penalties as accountability [5]. Opponents—human‑rights and municipal groups—say sanctuary policies promote public safety by encouraging community trust and reporting, and warn that federal funding threats chill local services and create constitutional conflicts; litigation has already produced at least one judicial check on withholding funds [4] [3].
6. Reporting gaps and contested claims
Available sources do not provide a verified, single nationwide count of sanctuary jurisdictions that all parties accept; different organizations publish different lists and the DOJ itself says its list is not exhaustive and will be updated [2] [8]. Claims about the public‑safety consequences of sanctuary policies are debated across sources: the DOJ and bill sponsors emphasize risk and legal obstruction [1] [5], while advocacy groups and municipal leaders emphasize civil‑rights protections and note court setbacks to federal enforcement actions [3] [4].
7. What to watch next
Expect continued litigation and legislative proposals at federal and state levels, more updates to the DOJ list, and pushback from municipal coalitions and legal groups seeking clarity on methodology and constitutional limits; national associations have already asked for better explanations of how jurisdictions were selected [7] [2]. Policymakers, judges, and local administrators will determine whether the conflict is resolved through court orders, negotiated policy changes, or further federal restrictions [7] [4].
Limitations: this analysis uses the provided documents and press reports; available sources do not include independent empirical studies measuring crime effects of sanctuary policies nor exhaustive lists that reconcile differing trackers [8] [9].