New Federal Law Threatens Sanctuary City Mayors with Up to 7 Years in Prison and Automatic Removal from Office

The ERIC ADAMS Act of 2025 is not about traffic tickets or zoning changes; it’s a federal bill that aims to radically change how cities cooperate with federal immigration enforcement—by making local mayors personally criminally liable if they don't.

This legislation creates two major new federal crimes targeting mayors of what it defines as “sanctuary cities.” A city falls into this category if it has any rule or practice that limits local police from working with or sharing information with federal immigration officials (like ICE) or refusing ICE detainer requests (SEC. 4). If enacted, this law kicks in 90 days after becoming law (SEC. 6).

The New Federal Crimes: Policy vs. Prison

The first new crime targets mayors who use city resources—think police funds or personnel—to knowingly and willfully block or interfere with federal immigration enforcement (SEC. 2). If a mayor issues an official order telling local law enforcement to refuse cooperation with federal requests, they could face up to five years in federal prison, a fine, or both. This is essentially criminalizing a policy decision if that decision is seen as actively obstructing federal agents.

The Manslaughter Provision: High Stakes Policy

The second crime, outlined in Section 1112A, is where things get truly serious. A mayor of a sanctuary city could be charged with criminal negligence resulting in manslaughter if an undocumented immigrant commits murder within city limits. This charge applies if the mayor knowingly kept in place a sanctuary policy that directly and foreseeably contributed to the immigrant not being detained or removed before the crime occurred. If convicted, the penalty is up to seven years in prison, a fine, and—crucially—automatic removal from public office and permanent disqualification from holding office again.

What This Means on the Ground

For local elected officials in cities across the country, this bill creates an intense personal risk for maintaining policies that have previously been considered matters of local discretion. If you’re a mayor, the cost of maintaining a policy designed to build trust between local police and immigrant communities could now be a federal felony and the end of your career. The bill forces local leaders to weigh their policy goals against the threat of personal imprisonment.

For local law enforcement, this bill creates a potential minefield. If the mayor issues a directive to limit cooperation, and that directive is now a federal crime, local police chiefs and officers could find themselves caught between following their mayor’s orders and avoiding potential involvement in a federal criminal investigation (SEC. 3). This could lead to massive confusion and conflicting mandates on the street.

The Causation Problem

The most complex part of this bill is the manslaughter provision, specifically the requirement that the sanctuary policy must have “directly and foreseeably contributed” to the murder. This is a high bar for prosecutors, but it also introduces a huge amount of legal and political uncertainty. Could a policy that merely limits information sharing be successfully argued as the direct cause of a violent crime committed months later? The fact that the Attorney General has the sole power to investigate and prosecute these cases (SEC. 3) means that decisions about charging a mayor will rest entirely with one federal office, adding a significant political dimension to enforcement.