New Bill Allows Citizens to Sue 'Sanctuary' Cities Over Crimes Committed by Undocumented Immigrants

The new Sanctuary City Accountability Act creates a direct path for U.S. citizens to sue local governments if they become victims of a crime committed by an undocumented immigrant. If you or a close family member is harmed, you can now take the local government—the "sanctuary jurisdiction"—to federal court. The goal is to either get a judge to order the city to stop its current policies (injunctive relief) or to get money back for your losses (compensatory damages).

When Does a City Become Liable?

This bill doesn't target every city; it focuses on those fitting the definition of a "sanctuary jurisdiction." That means any local government with policies that actively try to block federal immigration enforcement and shield criminals from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Specific examples given in the bill include refusing to honor ICE requests to hold someone (detainers), creating "unreasonable hurdles" to complying with those requests, or blocking ICE agents from interviewing people in local jails. Essentially, if a city is deliberately putting up roadblocks to federal law enforcement, they could be vulnerable to a lawsuit.

The New Private Right of Action: What It Means for Victims

For a victim of a crime committed by an undocumented individual, this bill creates a significant new avenue for financial recovery and policy change. Say someone is the victim of a robbery in a city that refuses all ICE detainer requests. If the robber is later identified as an undocumented individual, the victim can use this new law to sue the city directly for damages. This moves accountability beyond just the individual offender and places potential financial liability on the local government for its immigration policies. The bill even allows the victim to sue the original jurisdiction even if the offender moves somewhere else and commits another crime.

The State Law Loophole

Here’s the catch that could complicate things: a local government is protected from these lawsuits if they were only following a policy or law put in place by their State government (SEC. 2). This creates a powerful shield. If a state passes a law mandating that all local jails ignore ICE detainer requests, the city following that state mandate cannot be sued under this Act. This provision effectively encourages states to step in and protect their local jurisdictions, potentially shifting the battleground from city hall to the state legislature, and making it harder for victims to hold local officials accountable if the policy originated higher up the chain.

The Practical Challenge of Vague Rules

While the intent to hold cities accountable is clear, the bill uses some terms that could lead to a lot of legal wrangling. What exactly constitutes "actively block" or "unreasonable hurdles"? These terms are subjective and will likely be tested extensively in federal court. For local governments, this means the threat of litigation becomes a major factor in policy decisions, even for minor administrative rules that might be interpreted as an "unreasonable hurdle" to ICE. The risk is that this new law could pressure local law enforcement to err on the side of full cooperation with federal requests, regardless of local priorities or community trust concerns, just to avoid expensive lawsuits.