HB1928, titled the “Sanctuary City Accountability Act,” would create a new private right of action under the Immigration and Nationality Act allowing U.S. nationals to sue a “sanctuary jurisdiction” in federal district court if an alien located in that jurisdiction commits a crime against them or an immediate family member. The bill authorizes plaintiffs to seek injunctive relief or compensatory damages, and it applies not only to the jurisdiction where the person was originally located, but also to any other jurisdiction to which the person later relocates.
The bill defines a sanctuary jurisdiction broadly as a state or local government that has laws or policies that obstruct immigration enforcement or limit cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including refusing ICE detainers, imposing conditions on detainer compliance, denying ICE access to incarcerated aliens, or otherwise impeding communication with federal immigration officers. It also includes a limitation stating that local governments cannot be held liable under this section for actions required by state law.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would amend Title I of the Immigration and Nationality Act by adding a new federal cause of action against states and local governments identified as sanctuary jurisdictions. It would expose those jurisdictions to federal civil litigation and potential damages or court orders based on their immigration-enforcement policies, while shielding local governments from liability when they are simply implementing state-imposed requirements. The measure would likely affect state and local immigration policies, ICE detainer practices, jail access rules, and information-sharing arrangements between local officials and federal immigration authorities.
Sentiment
The available record shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, with no recorded committee transcript or vote history provided. Based on the bill’s framing and sponsor list, the measure appears to be supported by members favoring stronger immigration enforcement and opposition to sanctuary policies. Because there are no hearings or votes in the provided materials, there is no documented bipartisan sentiment or formal committee reaction to assess.
Contention
The main point of contention is the bill’s treatment of sanctuary jurisdictions and whether federal law should authorize private lawsuits against state and local governments for limiting cooperation with ICE. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill increases accountability and provides remedies for victims of crimes committed by noncitizens in jurisdictions that restrict immigration enforcement. Opponents would likely object that it intrudes on state and local policy choices, could chill local governance, and may impose liability based on broad and potentially disputed definitions of sanctuary policies. The limitation on liability for actions required by state law may also be significant for local governments caught between state mandates and federal enforcement expectations.