States Escalate Push Against Sanctuary Policies With Laws and Penalties

Dive Right Into

Key Takeaways

• Over 20 U.S. states introduced anti-sanctuary legislation in 2025, with penalties like fines, lawsuits, and imprisonment for non-compliance.
• Georgia’s proposed law lets private citizens sue local officials violating its sanctuary ban; penalties include misdemeanors, funding loss, or lawsuits.
• States like Florida and Wyoming enforce strict measures, with penalties reaching $20,000 fines or up to 10 years imprisonment.

States across the United States 🇺🇸 are taking firm action against sanctuary policies. These are local measures that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. In 2025, this issue has taken center stage as over 20 states, largely led by Republican lawmakers, have introduced legislation aimed at penalizing local governments and officials who resist President Donald Trump’s immigration policies. These penalties range from fines and lawsuits to, in some cases, imprisonment for those who adopt sanctuary policies.

States Escalate Push Against Sanctuary Policies With Laws and Penalties

Georgia: Empowering Lawsuits Against Local Officials

Georgia has intensified its stance against sanctuary policies through a proposed law introduced by Republican state Senator Blake Tillery. The bill, which recently passed the state Senate and is under consideration in the House, would allow private individuals to sue local governments and officials who defy the state’s existing ban on sanctuary policies. Tillery argues that the measure adds enforcement power by providing a way for individuals to seek compensation if local officials fail to follow Georgia’s immigration laws.

This proposal builds on Georgia’s existing law passed in 2024, which already requires local law enforcement to collaborate with federal immigration authorities. Non-compliant officials can face misdemeanor charges, and local governments risk losing state funding. If this bill becomes law, it would significantly increase the stakes by allowing citizens to hold officials responsible through legal action.

Critics have raised concerns about the consequences of such a law. Democratic state Senator Nikki Merritt suggests it may result in unnecessary detentions of immigrants due to fear of lawsuits. Some organizations and legal experts, like Atlanta-based immigration attorney Charles Kuck, see this as part of “Donald Trump’s war on immigrants.” They argue the legislation could harm communities without solving any real problems.

Louisiana: Lawsuits and Limited Detainer Compliance

In Louisiana, the battle against sanctuary policies has also escalated. The state passed a law in 2024 that requires law enforcement agencies to make strong efforts to enforce federal immigration law. Recently, Attorney General Liz Murrill filed a lawsuit against the Orleans Parish Sheriff’s Office, accusing it of violating these rules. The sheriff’s office limits cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), honoring immigration detainer requests only in cases involving grave crimes like murder or kidnapping.

This selective cooperation stems from a 2013 federal consent judgment that limits the office’s actions. However, the lawsuit by the state attorney general highlights the ongoing tension between local policies and new state laws aimed at reinforcing federal immigration enforcement.

Florida: One of the Toughest Stances in the Country

Florida has put in place what is considered one of the most aggressive anti-sanctuary policies in the U.S. 🇺🇸 Signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, the legislation requires the state attorney general to sue local governments failing to collaborate with federal immigration authorities. Local officials violating the ban on sanctuary policies face fines as high as $5,000. This strict measure underscores Florida’s commitment to ensuring compliance with federal immigration requests.

Tennessee and Wyoming: Severe Penalties for Officials

Tennessee has further ramped up its enforcement against sanctuary jurisdictions by introducing criminal consequences for officials. While the state already withheld economic development funds from governments that adopted sanctuary policies, a new law signed by Governor Bill Lee has added felony charges for officials voting in favor of such measures. These charges could carry sentences of up to six years in prison. However, legal experts have questioned whether criminalizing votes by elected officials can hold up under constitutional scrutiny.

Wyoming is also taking decisive action. A proposed bill, which has already passed the state House and is now pending in the Senate, seeks to block sanctuary policies entirely. Local governments and citizens would be prohibited from proposing such measures. The penalties are highly punitive: local officials refusing to comply with federal immigration authorities could face felony charges, including 5-10 years in prison and fines of up to $20,000. Additionally, the governor would have the authority to withhold all state funding from cities or counties that violate the law.

New Hampshire: Two Bills Take Aim at Local Policies

In New Hampshire 🇺🇸, legislators have introduced two different bills aimed at stopping sanctuary policies. While both target non-compliant local governments, they propose different methods of enforcement. The Senate’s version gives the state attorney general the authority to sue such governments, with penalties potentially equaling one-quarter of their state funding. The House’s version, on the other hand, removes financial penalties but includes detailed instructions to ensure local governments work with federal immigration authorities.

Federal Action Against Sanctuary Jurisdictions

The push at the state level aligns with stronger federal efforts against sanctuary cities. The U.S. Department of Justice has filed lawsuits against Illinois, Chicago, and Cook County, accusing them of failing to comply with federal immigration laws. These lawsuits emphasize the ongoing clash between federal immigration policies under President Trump and local priorities.

At the same time, President Trump’s renewed focus on immigration enforcement has translated into action. Federal operations in early 2025 have seen over 8,000 arrests in just two weeks, spanning nearly 24 cities. However, many sanctuary jurisdictions continue to resist cooperation between local police and immigration officers, creating tension between state and federal efforts.

Community Impact and Broader Concerns

The surge in new legislation targeting sanctuary policies has sparked fear in immigrant communities across the nation. In states like Georgia, families worry that stricter enforcement by ICE might lead to more arrests in homes, schools, and churches. Local advocacy groups warn that these laws could erode trust between immigrant communities and law enforcement, making individuals less likely to report crimes or work with police out of fear of deportation.

The tension is felt even among law enforcement professionals. The Georgia Sheriffs’ Association, for example, has chosen to remain neutral on the most recent proposal, noting that sheriffs already follow existing state laws regarding immigration enforcement.

The Debate Over Local Autonomy Versus Federal Priorities

Supporters of anti-sanctuary laws assert that strict enforcement ensures cities follow federal immigration regulations and prevents local governments from undermining national priorities. From their perspective, these laws are essential to uphold public safety and the rule of law.

However, critics argue that these measures risk violating the rights of local governments and immigrants alike. They highlight concerns over potential constitutional challenges, especially when elected officials face criminal charges for their voting decisions. Additionally, there are fears these laws could lead to overreach, civil rights violations, and unnecessary detentions.

Looking Ahead: The Future of Immigration Enforcement

The ongoing tension between federal immigration authorities and sanctuary jurisdictions indicates this debate is far from settled. As new laws are passed and lawsuits make their way through courts, the practical impact of these policies will come into sharper focus. For now, the divide between proponents of strict federal enforcement and defenders of local autonomy continues to grow.

For more information about federal immigration laws and processes, readers can visit U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

Analysis from VisaVerge.com suggests that as more states join the movement to implement tough measures against sanctuary policies, immigrants and local governments must navigate complex and competing legal frameworks. The months ahead will likely bring further changes that could shape immigration policy for years to come.

Learn Today

Sanctuary Policies → Local measures limiting cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, often protecting undocumented immigrants.
Immigration Detainer Requests → Formal requests from federal authorities that local law enforcement hold individuals suspected of being deportable.
Consent Judgment → A legal agreement approved by a court, often used to resolve disputes without admission of guilt.
Felony Charges → Serious criminal charges often carrying severe penalties, such as imprisonment of over one year and/or significant fines.
Local Autonomy → The ability of local governments to make independent decisions without interference from state or federal authorities.

This Article in a Nutshell

States nationwide are cracking down on sanctuary policies, sparking fierce debate. Over 20 states, led by Republican lawmakers, propose penalties for officials resisting federal immigration law. Critics warn of eroded trust in immigrant communities, while supporters claim public safety benefits. This escalating clash highlights the ongoing struggle between local autonomy and federal priorities in America.
— By VisaVerge.com