SB 3805, titled the End Sanctuary Cities Act of 2026, would create a new federal criminal offense in chapter 93 of title 18 for “obstruction of immigration laws by official interference.” The bill targets state and local executive officials acting under color of law who knowingly prohibit, limit, or restrict compliance with a formal Department of Homeland Security request for reasonable advance notice before the release of a “criminal alien.” The bill defines several key terms, including “criminal alien,” “reasonable advance notice,” and categories of offenses such as serious violent felonies, murder, rape, and sex offenses against minors.
The measure establishes criminal penalties that escalate based on the seriousness of the offense connected to the release. If the release involves a criminal alien charged with or convicted of murder, rape, or certain sex offenses against minors, the penalty would be 10 to 25 years in prison; for serious violent felonies, 5 to 10 years; and for other federal or state offenses, 30 days to 6 months. The bill also includes a severability clause and a technical amendment to the chapter 93 table of sections.
Impact
If enacted, the bill would significantly expand federal criminal law by creating a new offense aimed at state and local officials whose policies or actions limit cooperation with federal immigration-enforcement requests. It would directly affect sanctuary-city style policies, jail-release notification practices, and other local or state rules that restrict communication with DHS about the release of noncitizens with criminal charges or convictions. The bill would also add a new statutory section, 18 U.S.C. § 1925, to the federal criminal code.
Sentiment
Based on the bill title, text, and lack of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a strong enforcement-oriented immigration bill with a clear anti-sanctuary-city purpose. The language suggests support from lawmakers favoring increased state and local cooperation with federal immigration authorities and stricter consequences for noncompliance. No formal vote history or transcript is available in the provided materials, so there is no documented bipartisan or committee sentiment to assess beyond the bill’s evident policy direction.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely federalism: the bill would criminalize decisions by state and local executive officials about how to manage jail-release notifications and cooperation with DHS, which critics may view as federal overreach into local governance and public-safety policy. Another likely dispute is the breadth of the definitions, especially “criminal alien,” “reasonable advance notice,” and the scope of covered officials and policies. Supporters would likely argue the bill is necessary to prevent release of dangerous offenders and improve immigration enforcement, while opponents would likely argue it pressures local jurisdictions to abandon sanctuary policies and could chill local discretion.
Federal Officer Protection Act Shielding Heroes In Enforcement from Loud Disruptions Act No Student Visas for Sanctuary Cities Act of 2026 No Rogue Nonprofits Act Stopping Invaders Act No Sanctuary Cities Act