State-by-state sanctuary policy guides remain central to U.S. immigration debates in 2026, as states and cities continue to set rules limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. These policies shape how local law enforcement interacts with federal agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), affecting detention practices, information sharing, and community policing across the country.
Across the United States, sanctuary policies are not defined by one federal law. Instead, states, counties, and cities adopt their own laws or executive directives. As of early 2026, the national landscape remains divided, with some states expanding protections while others restrict or ban sanctuary policies entirely.
Table of Contents
What sanctuary policies mean in practice
Sanctuary policies generally limit how local agencies cooperate with federal immigration authorities. They do not prevent federal enforcement. ICE still operates nationwide.
Typical elements include:
- Limits on honoring immigration detainer requests without a warrant
- Restrictions on sharing release dates or personal data
- Rules that prevent police from asking about immigration status in routine interactions
- Policies allowing cooperation in serious criminal cases
Supporters argue these policies improve public safety because immigrant communities report crimes more often. Critics say they hinder federal enforcement and create inconsistent immigration rules across states.
States with statewide sanctuary protections
Several states maintain broad laws that restrict local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. These laws set statewide standards rather than leaving decisions solely to cities.
California
California continues to have the most comprehensive statewide sanctuary framework. State law restricts police from using resources for immigration enforcement except in defined criminal situations.
Key features:
- Limits on transfers to ICE without qualifying criminal convictions
- Restrictions on information sharing
- Requirements for public transparency around ICE access to jails
Large cities such as Los Angeles and San Francisco operate additional local policies.
Illinois
Illinois maintains statewide protections that prevent local police from detaining individuals solely based on immigration detainers. Courts and agencies follow rules that limit voluntary cooperation with ICE.
Chicago also maintains local ordinances that reinforce these protections.
New Jersey
New Jersey’s statewide directive continues to restrict most cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities. The policy focuses on separating policing from immigration enforcement while allowing cooperation in serious criminal matters.
Oregon
Oregon remains one of the earliest sanctuary states, with laws dating back decades. The state prohibits use of local resources to enforce federal immigration law except under specific legal requirements.
Washington
Washington law sets clear limits on data sharing and detention cooperation. The state requires agencies to create written policies and provide public guidance.
States that ban sanctuary policies
Several states prohibit cities or counties from adopting sanctuary rules. These states require local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
Texas
Texas maintains one of the strictest anti-sanctuary laws. Local agencies must comply with ICE detainer requests in many situations, and officials may face penalties for limiting cooperation.
Major cities such as Houston and Dallas must follow state law even when local leaders support sanctuary approaches.
Florida
Florida law requires local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and restricts sanctuary policies. Agencies must honor detainer requests and participate in federal partnership programs.
Tennessee
Tennessee prohibits sanctuary policies and allows penalties for jurisdictions that limit cooperation with ICE. The state has expanded enforcement requirements in recent years.
Iowa
Iowa requires local law enforcement to comply with detainer requests and discourages policies that restrict immigration enforcement cooperation.
Mixed or city-level sanctuary landscapes
Some states do not have a single statewide policy. Instead, sanctuary rules exist mainly at the city or county level.
Examples include:
- Colorado: State law limits detention on detainers without warrants, while cities maintain additional policies.
- Massachusetts: Statewide rules remain complex, but major cities such as Boston operate sanctuary-style policies.
- New York: State agencies follow limits on cooperation, and New York City maintains extensive local protections.
- Pennsylvania: Policies vary widely by county and city, creating a patchwork enforcement environment.
This mixed approach reflects ongoing legal and political debate. Court decisions continue to shape how far states and cities can go.
Recent developments shaping 2025–2026 policy
The sanctuary policy landscape continues to change due to legislation, court rulings, and federal priorities.
Current confirmed trends include:
- States continue passing laws clarifying data-sharing rules and detention standards
- Federal programs that partner local agencies with ICE remain optional in many jurisdictions
- Legal challenges continue over state authority versus federal immigration powers
- Border and asylum debates influence state legislative agendas
Several states have proposed bills addressing cooperation rules, but adoption varies widely. Courts still play a major role in defining how detainers and information sharing work.
Key differences readers should understand
A major takeaway from state-by-state sanctuary policy guides is that “sanctuary” does not mean the same thing everywhere.
Important differences:
- Some states restrict detainer compliance; others require it
- Data-sharing rules vary widely
- Jail access policies differ between jurisdictions
- Police questioning practices are not uniform
Because of this variation, immigration enforcement experiences differ significantly depending on location.
Impact on policing and communities
Law enforcement leaders often focus on trust when discussing sanctuary policies. Agencies in sanctuary jurisdictions say separation from immigration enforcement helps witnesses cooperate and report crimes.
Meanwhile, officials in anti-sanctuary states argue cooperation improves public safety by allowing faster identification and transfer of individuals with criminal records.
Research findings remain mixed, and policy debates continue at state legislatures nationwide.
Why these guides matter in 2026
State-by-state sanctuary policy guides have become essential for residents, legal professionals, and policymakers because immigration enforcement rules increasingly depend on location.
These guides help people understand:
- What local police can and cannot do
- Whether detainers may be honored
- How data sharing works
- What rights apply during local detention
As immigration remains a major national issue in 2026, clarity around these policies continues to shape political debate and everyday legal decisions.
Public policy around sanctuary rules continues to evolve — share your perspective or stay tuned for updates as state laws change.
