Under Attack: The Sanctity of Sanctuary Cities
This guest post does not necessarily reflect the views or expertise of Human Rights First. It is part of a partnership between UCLA Law and Human Rights First, where UCLA Law students use the new Democracy Watch tracker to analyze legislative threats to democracy
By Raafiya Ali Khan
President Trump is expected to sign an Executive Order today requiring the attorney general and the secretary of Homeland Security to create a list of all cities and states not complying with federal immigration laws, a direct attack on cities and states that claim sanctuary status. Sanctuary cities are a relatively new concept to the United States, yet are currently mired in controversy. In 1971, Berkeley, California became the first city to invoke the term, declaring itself a “Sanctuary” for U.S. Navy soldiers who refused to serve in the Vietnam War. During the 1980s, the term “sanctuary” was associated with the Sanctuary Movement during which churches harbored Central American refugees fleeing violence and civil wars in their home countries to prevent them from being deported. Churches popularized this practice of harboring immigrants at risk of being deported once again during President Trump’s first term. Most recently, President Trump’s administration has reversed decades-long policies prohibiting agencies like Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) from making immigration arrests in sensitive areas like churches and schools.
Contrary to popular belief, sanctuary cities do not protect undocumented immigrants from all kinds of government action seeking to deport them. In reality, sanctuary cities are cities with ordinances that limit or define how much city/state police can collaborate or share information with federal authorities like ICE and CBP in order to detain and/or arrest immigrants. ICE and CPB can still arrest undocumented immigrants in sanctuary cities, but per city ordinances, local law enforcement may not be allowed to detain undocumented immigrants for federal immigration violations, or share information on undocumented immigrants with the federal government. These ordinances work to build community trust in local law enforcement and allow undocumented immigrants to engage with the criminal law system by reporting crime, acting as witnesses, or helping local law enforcement in investigations without the fear of deportation, thereby creating safer communities.
Rather than shield undocumented immigrants from legal action, sanctuary cities seek to provide protection to our nation’s most vulnerable and ensure greater efficiency of our criminal legal system. According to data collected by our Democracy Watch Legislation Tracker, around 90 anti-sanctuary bills have been introduced between 2024-2025 paired with a continued upward trend of dangerous anti-immigration legislation. Since 2025, 9 states have passed anti-sanctuary bills such as South Dakota’s S.B.7, “Prohibit the adoption or implementation of certain policies related to immigration enforcement,” and Wyoming’s H.B.0133, “Sanctuary cities, counties and state-prohibition.”
During his first term, President Trump signed Executive Order 13768: “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States”, threatening to withhold federal funding to sanctuary cities if they do not comply with federal immigration laws. While former President Biden reversed this order during his time in office, the recent House bill, H.R. 32: No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act, essentially shares the same purpose as the executive order and last year’s Mobilizing Against Sanctuary Cities Act: to penalize state and local governments by withholding federal funds from them if they do not assist with federal immigration enforcement actions and share requested individuals’ immigration status with the federal government. Withholding federal funds can be extremely harmful to cities relying on them and may affect not only immigrants, but the larger population. If the federal government withholds funds from cities, this could harm cities’ federally funded public service programs like disaster relief, housing support, and meal programs such as Meals on Wheels that serve the public at large.
While the current administration’s crackdown on immigrants, documented and undocumented alike, is rapidly progressing, many of the administration’s broader immigration plans present legal issues. Even if passed, H.R. 32 may not wield the penalizing power some politicians hope it does due to two key constitutional issues. First, H.R. 32 may violate the anti-commandeering doctrine of the Tenth Amendment, which prohibits the federal government from forcing states to enforce federal law. Second, the Supreme Court ruled in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) that the federal government cannot attach coercive conditions to funding that would force states to comply with the federal government’s order. Denying all or a substantial amount of federal funding to state and local governments in order to force compliance with federal immigration laws could potentially be deemed unconstitutional and contrary to the decision in NFIB v. Sebelius.
Not only could this bill be unconstitutional, H.R. 32 would harm communities, by eroding trust and instilling greater fear of law enforcement. Although the bill specifies that this funding restriction does not apply when a jurisdiction’s law, policy, or practice protects undocumented individuals coming forward as victims or witnesses to a crime, this could impact many immigrants’ trust in legal procedures. During President Trump’s first term, immigrants were less likely to report crimes or engage in the court system out of a fear of deportation than in prior years. This disturbing trend may increase under these new laws, leading to a decrease in crime reporting and compounded safety issues for immigrant populations and their larger local communities. These policies are the antithesis of the American Dream, turning the hopes of individuals who fled persecution into an unending nightmare.
All hope may not be lost though. On April 24, 2025, a federal judge blocked the Trump administration from withholding federal funds to 16 sanctuary cities and counties. Although the Department of Justice defending the policy has vowed to continue fighting in court to further President Trump’s anti-immigration agenda, the judiciary remains stalwart in upholding the law.
Raafiya Ali Khan is a law student at UCLA School of Law. She is interested in public interest law, particularly constitutional, civil, and international human rights law. Prior to law school, she worked at a nonprofit focused on advancing gender and racial equity in employment and higher education. She graduated from the University of California, San Diego with a B.A. in Composite Literature.
