Sponsors (6)
Last progress June 12, 2025 (8 months ago)
Introduced on June 12, 2025 by Ralph Norman
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Prohibits any Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) grantee from being or becoming a "sanctuary jurisdiction" while receiving grant funds by adding a new statutory definition of that term and making compliance a condition of CDBG eligibility. The definition identifies two categories of local policies or practices that qualify a jurisdiction as a "sanctuary jurisdiction" and includes a narrow exception for policies that protect victims or witnesses.
Adds a new definition (labelled (25)) of the term “sanctuary jurisdiction” to section 102(a) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5302(a)).
Defines a “sanctuary jurisdiction” as any State or political subdivision that has in effect a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts any government entity or official from sending, receiving, maintaining, or exchanging with any Federal, State, or local government entity information regarding the citizenship or immigration status (lawful or unlawful) of any individual.
Defines a “sanctuary jurisdiction” to include any State or political subdivision that has in effect a statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that prohibits or restricts any government entity or official from complying with a request lawfully made by the Department of Homeland Security under section 236 or 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act to comply with a detainer for, or notify about the release of, an individual.
Creates a specific exception: a State or political subdivision will not be deemed a “sanctuary jurisdiction” solely because it has a policy where officials will not share information regarding, or comply with a DHS detainer request concerning, an individual who comes forward as a victim or witness to a criminal offense.
Makes technical changes in section 104(b) (42 U.S.C. 5304(b)): strikes the word “and” at the end of paragraph (5) and redesignates paragraph (6) as paragraph (7).
Who is affected and how:
Local governments and other current or prospective CDBG grantees: Most directly affected because the bill conditions continued eligibility for federal CDBG funds on not being a "sanctuary jurisdiction." Jurisdictions with the enumerated policies would need to revise or rescind those policies to remain eligible, or risk losing access to CDBG funds that support housing, infrastructure, and community development.
Communities and residents served by CDBG-funded programs: Low‑ and moderate‑income households, renters, homeowners, and local communities that rely on CDBG money for housing rehabilitation, public infrastructure, and services could face reduced funding if their jurisdiction is found to meet the new definition. That could delay or cancel projects and services.
HUD and federal grant administrators: Will likely face new compliance and monitoring requirements to determine whether grantees qualify as "sanctuary jurisdictions," and may need to issue guidance, carry out reviews, or develop enforcement processes (not specified in the one‑section summary).
Immigrant communities and public‑safety/witness/victim programs: The provision is likely designed to limit local policies that restrict cooperation with federal immigration enforcement; it may chill certain local practices. The narrow exception for victim/witness protections preserves a limited category of protective policies but could leave other protections vulnerable.
Legal system and advocacy groups: Because the change conditions federal funding on local policy choices, it raises constitutional and statutory questions (e.g., about federalism and conditional spending) that could lead to litigation and sustained legal challenges.
Overall effects:
Updated 1 day ago
Last progress June 12, 2025 (8 months ago)