AN ACT relating to sanctuary policies.
HB344, titled the Lawful Immigration System Act of 2025, would prohibit state entities, law enforcement agencies, and local governments from adopting or maintaining “sanctuary policies” for people unlawfully present in the United States. The bill defines sanctuary policies broadly to include rules or practices that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities, including compliance with immigration detainers, notice before release, access for interviews, participation in federal immigration agreements, and sharing incarceration or release information.
The bill also requires law enforcement agencies to use reasonably available resources to support federal immigration enforcement and bars state or local restrictions on sharing immigration-status information with federal agencies or other Kentucky agencies. In criminal cases involving defendants subject to immigration detainers or transfer to federal custody, secure correctional facilities would have to notify federal immigration authorities of anticipated release dates, cooperate in transfer to federal custody, and in some cases transport inmates to federal facilities or other transfer points. Judges would be required to record detainer notices in the court record, and counties would be encouraged to enter agreements with federal immigration agencies to house detainees and recover costs.
HB344 further creates enforcement mechanisms and penalties. The Attorney General would investigate alleged violations by local governments, issue findings, and trigger suspension of county or municipal road-aid funds if a local government continues violating the act. State and local officers who intentionally violate the act would be presumed to have committed malfeasance and neglect of duty and could be subject to impeachment. The bill also creates a civil cause of action for victims or families of victims if a person released because of a sanctuary policy later commits a violent offense, and it waives certain immunities for that claim.
The bill would amend Kentucky’s road-aid statutes to tie eligibility for county and municipal road funds to compliance with the act and with existing financial reporting requirements. It also includes exceptions for victims and witnesses of crimes, limiting when their immigration information must be shared and requiring agencies to document and retain records of their cooperation. Overall, the bill would significantly expand state and local obligations to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and add financial and legal penalties for noncompliance.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly pro-enforcement and anti-sanctuary, with a clear emphasis on mandatory cooperation with federal immigration authorities. No committee transcripts or vote history were provided, so there is no recorded public debate or voting pattern in the supplied materials to indicate support or opposition beyond the bill’s structure and enforcement provisions.
HB344 would create new provisions in KRS Chapter 61 governing immigration-related cooperation by state entities, law enforcement agencies, local governments, secure correctional facilities, judges, and county jails. It would also amend KRS 177.360 and 177.366 to authorize suspension of county and municipal road-aid funds for local governments found by the Attorney General to be in violation of the act, thereby linking immigration compliance to state transportation funding. The bill would affect local governments, jailers, courts, correctional facilities, and the Attorney General’s office, while also creating a private right of action in certain cases involving violent crimes after release from custody.
The bill’s language and structure indicate a strong pro-enforcement, anti-sanctuary posture. It mandates cooperation with federal immigration authorities, creates penalties for noncompliance, and conditions state funding on adherence to the act. Because no committee discussion or votes were provided, there is no documented legislative debate in the supplied record to show specific support, opposition, or amendments, but the bill itself is framed as a forceful immigration-enforcement measure.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s broad definition of sanctuary policy, the requirement that local and state agencies cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, and the use of road-aid funding as a penalty for noncompliance. Civil liberties, local control, and due-process concerns may arise from the mandatory detainer compliance provisions, the Attorney General enforcement process, and the civil liability section that waives immunities for local governments and agencies. Another likely issue is the bill’s treatment of victims and witnesses, which creates an exception but still requires documentation and long-term record retention.