Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
The bill bars any State or local jurisdiction that qualifies as a "sanctuary jurisdiction" from receiving HUD-administered grant funds for use within that jurisdiction. A "sanctuary jurisdiction" is defined as a State or political subdivision that restricts exchanging immigration-status information or refuses DHS detainer/notification requests under INA sections 236 or 287.
Liberals stress harm to low-income residents; conservatives emphasize immigration enforcement.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear substantive policy change: it expressly conditions HUD grant eligibility on a jurisdiction’s immigration-related policies.
The bill bars any State or local jurisdiction that qualifies as a "sanctuary jurisdiction" from receiving HUD-administered grant funds for use within that jurisdiction.
A "sanctuary jurisdiction" is defined as a State or political subdivision that restricts exchanging immigration-status information or refuses DHS detainer/notification requests under INA sections 236 or 287.
The funding ban would apply to grants distributed 180 days after enactment, and HUD must consult DHS to identify covered jurisdictions.
Substantively divisive, raises constitutional and federalism risks, and would face major hurdles in a closely divided Senate and likely litigation.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear substantive policy change: it expressly conditions HUD grant eligibility on a jurisdiction’s immigration-related policies. The bill supplies basic definitional and timing elements and assigns responsibility to HUD (with DHS consultation). However, it lacks detailed implementation mechanics, fiscal analysis, and accountability measures that would typically accompany a nationwide change in eligibility for federal grant funds.
Liberals stress harm to low-income residents; conservatives emphasize immigration enforcement.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Liberals stress harm to low-income residents; conservatives emphasize immigration enforcement.
Likely strongly opposed.
They will view the bill as punitive toward cities and states that limit immigration-enforcement cooperation, with likely harms to low-income residents who depend on HUD programs.
Skeptical and cautious.
They will weigh federal interest in immigration enforcement against legal limits on conditional funding and practical impacts on housing programs and public safety.
Generally supportive.
They will see the bill as a lawful and practical tool to pressure jurisdictions to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and to deny federal dollars to noncooperative localities.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Substantively divisive, raises constitutional and federalism risks, and would face major hurdles in a closely divided Senate and likely litigation.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Liberals stress harm to low-income residents; conservatives emphasize immigration enforcement.
Substantively divisive, raises constitutional and federalism risks, and would face major hurdles in a closely divided Senate and likely lit…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a clear substantive policy change: it expressly conditions HUD grant eligibility on a jurisdiction’s immigration-related policies. The bill supplies basic definiti…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.