New Bill Lets Victims Sue 'Sanctuary Cities': Grants Tied to Lawsuit Immunity Waiver

The "Justice for Victims of Sanctuary Cities Act of 2025" creates a legal pathway for victims of certain crimes to sue cities and states deemed "sanctuary jurisdictions." Let's break down what that actually means.

Suing Over Sanctuary

This bill, introduced in 2025, allows individuals (or their families) harmed by an alien—that is, a non-U.S. citizen, as defined under existing immigration law (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(3))—to sue a state or local government if that government is classified as a "sanctuary jurisdiction." The crimes covered are serious: murder, rape, or any felony that results in a prison sentence of at least one year for the non-citizen (SEC. 3). The lawsuit window is pretty wide, too – victims have 10 years from the date of the crime, or resulting death, to file suit. If they win, the court must award them attorney's fees and expert costs.

So, what's a "sanctuary jurisdiction"? According to this bill (SEC. 2), it's any state or local government with a policy that restricts sharing information about someone's immigration status with federal authorities, or that limits compliance with Department of Homeland Security (DHS) requests to detain or notify them about the release of an individual. There's one exception: jurisdictions that protect victims or witnesses of crimes from information sharing or detainment requests are not considered sanctuary jurisdictions under this law.

The Grant Game

Here's where it gets interesting. The bill requires states and localities that accept certain federal grants to waive their immunity from these lawsuits (SEC. 3). Meaning, if they take the money, they agree to be sued. The grants in question are mainly for things like public works, economic development, and community development – basically, money that helps local economies function. Disaster relief grants are excluded from this requirement.

Feds in Charge, Locals Off the Hook?

Section 4 of the bill deals with the relationship between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. It says that when state and local entities comply with DHS detainers (requests to hold someone), they're basically acting as agents of DHS. More importantly, if they follow the detainer, they're protected from liability in any legal challenges related to the detention. The lawsuit, in that case, would be against the United States, not the local government. However, and this is a big 'however', this protection doesn't apply if the local officer knowingly violated someone's civil or constitutional rights (SEC. 4(c)).

Real-World Ripple Effects

Imagine a small business owner in a city that receives federal funding for a downtown revitalization project. If that city is also considered a "sanctuary jurisdiction" because, for example, it limits cooperation with ICE to build trust with immigrant communities, it now faces a choice: potentially lose funding that benefits all residents or risk lawsuits related to the actions of a very small number of individuals. Or consider a construction worker who is also undocumented and witnesses a crime. Under the exception in SEC. 2, a city's policy of not sharing their information with ICE would not classify the city as a sanctuary. But, if the city's policy is broader, it might be at risk.

This bill could create some serious tension. It essentially puts pressure on local governments to prioritize immigration enforcement to avoid lawsuits and could strain relationships between immigrant communities and law enforcement. It also raises questions about how much influence the federal government should have over local policies, especially when tied to funding that supports essential services. The definition of 'sanctuary jurisdiction' is broad, and could encompass a wide range of policies, creating uncertainty.