What states are sactuarys? and what does it mean?

1. What “sanctuary” means in practice: policy, not a single law

The term “sanctuary” describes a family of policies—some written into statute, others administrative or declaratory—that generally restrict how state or local officials assist federal immigration authorities: refusing to hold people on ICE detainers without a warrant, limiting transfer of immigration-status information, and prohibiting use of local funds or facilities for immigration enforcement ^{[4] [6]}. Legal scholars and Congress’s research arm emphasize there is no single federal legal definition of “sanctuary,” which is why jurisdictions draw the line differently and often include caveats like “except as required by law” ^{[1] [4]}.

2. Why lists differ: competing methodologies and political motives

Multiple organizations and government offices publish lists but use different criteria: advocacy groups and immigrant-rights organizations focus on protections from local entanglement in deportations, mapping statutes and policies that reduce fear and encourage reporting of crimes ^{[7] [8]}; conservative think tanks and some federal agencies count refusals to comply with ICE detainers or policies that “materially impede” enforcement ^{[6] [9]}. The Department of Justice, acting under Executive Order 14287, compiled and published an official “sanctuary jurisdictions” list in 2025 using its own criteria and signaled possible litigation or funding consequences for listed jurisdictions—highlighting the political and enforcement stakes behind any list ^{[5] [9]}.

3. Which states commonly appear as “sanctuary states”

No universally accepted roster exists, but several states appear repeatedly across trackers. California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, and Washington were listed together by some mappings cited in national coverage ^[3], while other sources and earlier trackers have grouped a more compact set—California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico, Oregon, and Vermont—depending on the metric used ^{[2] [10]}. Advocacy-oriented compilations and maps (e.g., CIS, state-by-state trackers) expand or contract the list based on statutory language, court rulings (like New York’s Francis v. DeMarco and the Protect Our Courts Act) and whether localities within a state have independent sanctuary policies ^{[10] [6]}.

4. Some named examples and legal anchors

Oregon is frequently cited as an early statutory example—its 1987 law barred use of public resources to detain noncitizens whose only offense was violating federal immigration law ^[10]. New York’s legal landscape shifted after a court decision and subsequent state law limiting immigration arrests around courthouses, which advocates cite as evidence of sanctuary-style protections at the state level ^[10]. At the federal level, recent executive action and DOJ lists have tried to impose a national frame by identifying jurisdictions whose laws or practices “materially impede” federal enforcement ^{[5] [9]}.

5. Two competing narratives and what to watch for

Supporters argue sanctuary policies protect community trust, public safety, and civil rights by disentangling local policing from federal immigration enforcement ^[7]. Critics and some federal officials contend those policies obstruct enforcement and threaten public safety—positions the DOJ invoked when publishing its list and pursuing litigation ^{[5] [9]}. Because there is no single statutory definition and because lists are curated with different aims, any claim that a fixed number of states are “sanctuary states” should be read with caution and checked against the criteria of the source making the claim ^{[1] [4]}.