H.R.3827 - Recouping Funds from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025 (119th Congress)
Summary
H.R.3827, the "Recouping Funds from Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025," aims to require sanctuary jurisdictions to return specific federal funds received during periods when they had policies restricting information sharing with federal immigration authorities. The bill defines sanctuary jurisdictions as those with statutes, ordinances, policies, or practices that prohibit or restrict government entities from sharing information about individuals' citizenship or immigration status with federal authorities or complying with Department of Homeland Security detainer requests. The Act stipulates that the return of funds applies to those received beginning five fiscal years before the Act's effective date, excluding funds received under subpart 1 of part E of title I of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. A grace period is provided for political subdivisions that remedy their sanctuary policies.
Expected Effects
If enacted, this bill would likely result in sanctuary jurisdictions facing pressure to alter their policies regarding cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Jurisdictions choosing to maintain their sanctuary status could face significant financial repercussions due to the required return of federal funds. This could lead to reduced funding for local programs and services within those jurisdictions.
Potential Benefits 2/5
- Increased Compliance with Federal Immigration Laws: May encourage local jurisdictions to cooperate more fully with federal immigration enforcement efforts.
- Potential Cost Savings for Federal Government: Recouping funds could offset federal spending, although the amount recouped is uncertain.
- Enhanced National Security: Proponents argue that increased information sharing could improve national security by aiding in the apprehension of dangerous individuals.
- Reduced Burden on Border States: By enforcing immigration laws, the bill could alleviate some of the pressure on states bordering Mexico.
Most Benefited Areas:
Potential Disadvantages
- Erosion of Trust Between Communities and Law Enforcement: Local communities, particularly immigrant communities, may become less trusting of law enforcement if local police are perceived as extensions of federal immigration authorities.
- Potential for Discrimination and Civil Rights Violations: Increased scrutiny of individuals' immigration status could lead to discriminatory practices and civil rights violations.
- Financial Hardship for Local Jurisdictions: Loss of federal funds could strain local budgets and force cuts to essential services.
- Undermining Local Control: The bill could be seen as an overreach of federal power into areas traditionally governed by local authorities.
- Economic Impact on Local Economies: Some argue that immigrants contribute significantly to local economies, and stricter enforcement could negatively impact these contributions.
Constitutional Alignment 2/5
The bill's constitutionality is debatable. Congress has the power to regulate immigration under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. The Tenth Amendment reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states, raising questions about federal overreach into local law enforcement. Additionally, the bill could potentially infringe upon the principles of federalism by coercing states and localities into enforcing federal immigration laws. The Supreme Court has addressed similar issues in cases like Printz v. United States, where it held that the federal government cannot compel state and local law enforcement to enforce federal laws.
Impact Assessment: Things You Care About
This action has been evaluated across 19 key areas that matter to citizens. Scores range from 1 (highly disadvantageous) to 5 (highly beneficial).