States Crack Down on Sanctuary Policies With Threats of Jail and Fines

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

• Georgia’s 2025 bill allows private lawsuits against local governments/employees violating state bans on sanctuary policies, expanding 2024 measures.
• Tennessee’s 2025 law penalizes officials approving sanctuary policies with felony charges, facing constitutional challenges over protections for elected officials.
• Wyoming proposes fines up to $20,000 and prison terms for uncooperative officials, targeting both governments and citizen-led sanctuary initiatives.

State-level efforts to enforce federal immigration laws are intensifying, with several U.S. states adopting measures to penalize non-compliance with immigration enforcement. These initiatives, gaining momentum in 2025, spotlight a national controversy over the balance of power between federal and local authorities in managing immigration.

In Georgia 🇺🇸, lawmakers are advancing a bill that builds upon stringent policies enacted in 2024. The proposed legislation allows private citizens to sue local governments or employees who violate the state’s ban on sanctuary policies. Republican state Senator Blake Tillery, the bill’s sponsor, claims the law equips residents “aggrieved by local governments and local officials” who fail to adhere to state immigration laws with a legal pathway to hold such entities accountable. Under Georgia’s 2024 law, local law enforcement must cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), with agencies facing a loss of state funding for non-compliance. The new measure escalates enforcement by enabling legal actions against individuals or governments flouting the rules.

States Crack Down on Sanctuary Policies With Threats of Jail and Fines

While supporters argue this is essential for upholding federal and state laws, critics remain concerned about the consequences. Democratic state Senator Nikki Merritt warns the bill may pressure law enforcement to detain undocumented immigrants longer than permitted under federal law, increasing the risk of legal liability. Immigration advocates echo these worries, suggesting these policies heighten fear in immigrant communities and discourage cooperation with authorities, which could undermine public safety.

Louisiana 🇺🇸 has adopted similar measures. In February 2025, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill filed a lawsuit against the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office. Murrill alleges that the office violated the state’s anti-sanctuary policies established in 2024, which require law enforcement to “use best efforts” to comply with federal immigration authority. The sheriff’s office only honors ICE detainer requests for individuals accused of severe crimes like murder or rape, a practice rooted in a 2013 federal court ruling. Further, the office has placed strict limits on information-sharing with ICE and requires legal authorization for ICE agents to interview detainees. Critics contend the state’s increased enforcement could collide with these federally sanctioned practices, adding to the state’s legal challenges.

South Dakota 🇺🇸 has taken a different approach. Republican Governor Larry Rhoden signed a law barring local and state policies limiting communication with federal officials regarding immigration status. Unlike stricter measures in Georgia or Louisiana, South Dakota’s law does not contain penalties for local governments failing to comply. This lighter-touch approach still aligns with the broader national movement against sanctuary policies but may encounter difficulties in enforcing compliance without punitive measures.

Florida 🇺🇸 is aggressively pursuing enforcement under a robust law signed by Governor Ron DeSantis. The law seeks to punish local governments that do not comply with ICE detainers. Florida’s policy imposes fines of up to $5,000 for local officials who deliberately violate the ban on sanctuary policies. The state attorney general is further mandated to initiate lawsuits against non-compliant entities—a model that proponents see as a deterrent to sanctuary policies but which opponents fear risks alienating immigrant residents.

Tennessee 🇺🇸 has enacted legislation that takes enforcement to an extreme. Under its 2025 law, local officials who approve sanctuary policies could face felony charges carrying penalties of up to six years in prison. Legislative attorneys, however, question the new law’s constitutional validity, emphasizing concerns about protections afforded to elected officials. The existing Tennessee law already denies state economic benefits to jurisdictions supporting sanctuary policies, making this legislation a more forceful extension of prior measures.

Wyoming 🇺🇸 is pursuing one of the harshest anti-sanctuary proposals in the nation. Its pending legislation, still under Senate review, would not only prohibit sanctuary jurisdictions but also penalize citizen-led initiatives advocating for them—a move intended to prevent any future local government from considering such policies. Proponents of the bill, like Republican state Representative Joel Guggenmos, acknowledge Wyoming currently lacks sanctuary jurisdictions but characterize the effort as preemptive. If passed, the law would impose penalties of up to $20,000 in fines and 5–10 years of prison time for uncooperative officials. It also gives the governor authority to withhold funding from jurisdictions that violate its provisions.

In New Hampshire 🇺🇸, lawmakers are debating two competing bills targeting sanctuary policies. The Senate’s version grants the attorney general power to sue local governments violating immigration rules and levy fines equal to 25% of their state funding. Meanwhile, the House bill emphasizes detailed instructions for local governments on how they must cooperate with federal deportation efforts while omitting penalties.

These state initiatives mirror earlier federal actions under the Trump administration. During his presidency, the Department of Justice filed lawsuits against jurisdictions like Illinois 🇺🇸 and Chicago for not enforcing federal immigration laws and obstructing ICE detainers. Such policies have sparked both support and critique, reflecting a national debate about the rights of local governments to set immigration rules that differ from federal law.

Proponents of these state-level measures point to public safety concerns, arguing that local non-cooperation hampers ICE’s ability to detain individuals who commit severe crimes. Officials like Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill have defended these laws as necessary tools for holding local governments accountable. At the same time, these laws are gaining traction among Republicans as campaigns against sanctuary jurisdictions intensify nationwide.

Critics, however, see these laws as discriminatory and potentially unconstitutional. Immigration advocates highlight that such measures may lead to racial profiling and undermine trust between law enforcement and immigrant communities. For example, Georgia’s new push to allow private lawsuits raises concerns that local governments will act more aggressively in detaining individuals, even when federal limits exist, leading to potential overreach.

The ripple effects of these laws extend beyond targeting sanctuary jurisdictions. Immigration experts warn of increasing lawsuits across the states as policies like Georgia’s encourage private citizens to sue. Court battles might also arise in states like Tennessee and Wyoming, where stricter penalties test constitutional protections. Opinions remain divided, with civil rights groups expected to challenge some of these measures in court. The constitutionality of punishing elected officials for policy votes will likely receive judicial scrutiny, particularly in Tennessee.

Analysis from VisaVerge.com suggests these anti-sanctuary laws are symptomatic of deep divisions over immigration priorities. While states like California 🇺🇸 and New York 🇺🇸 continue to embrace sanctuary approaches, others, particularly in the South and Midwest, are entrenching laws aimed at eradicating them. This growing patchwork underscores polarized perspectives on immigration, leaving local governments caught in political and legal crossfire.

The debate over sanctuary policies resonates with immigrant communities concerned about the impact of enforcement on daily life. Critics argue communities may withdraw from social services or hesitate to report crimes due to fear of detention, ultimately weakening community cooperation with law enforcement.

State-by-state battles over sanctuary laws show no signs of abating, with lawsuits and public opposition also mounting. As policy shifts continue, the outcomes—and their effects on immigrants, law enforcement, and broader public safety—remain uncertain. For additional detailed guidance about immigration laws and enforcement policies in your state, refer to official resources such as ICE’s website.

This trend highlights a larger shift in state and federal coordination, raising essential questions about the balance of power in enforcement and its impacts on local jurisdictions, immigrant communities, and broader U.S. immigration policy.

Learn Today

Sanctuary Policies → Local or state measures limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities to protect undocumented immigrants.
ICE Detainer Requests → Requests from Immigration and Customs Enforcement to local law enforcement to hold individuals for potential immigration violations.
Legal Liability → The state of being responsible under the law, potentially facing lawsuits or penalties for actions or noncompliance.
Anti-Sanctuary Laws → State laws prohibiting policies or practices that limit enforcement of federal immigration laws at local or state levels.
Federal Preemption → A legal principle where federal law overrides conflicting state or local laws in areas governed by federal authority.

This Article in a Nutshell

State-led crackdowns on sanctuary policies are reshaping immigration enforcement, sparking controversy. Georgia empowers citizens to sue non-compliant governments, while Wyoming proposes harsh penalties, including prison time. Critics warn such measures risk overreach, racial profiling, and eroding trust. As state-federal tensions escalate, immigration law becomes a battleground, leaving immigrant communities and local authorities navigating uncertainty.
— By VisaVerge.com