End Sanctuary Cities Act of 2026
Summary
What This Bill Does
The End Sanctuary Cities Act of 2026 creates a federal crime for the senior executive official responsible for a state or local law, policy, practice, or action that knowingly prohibits, limits, or restricts compliance with a formal Department of Homeland Security request for advance notice before a covered noncitizen is released from custody. A covered person is a noncitizen charged with or convicted of any federal or state crime. Reasonable notice means notice as early as practicable and, unless impossible, at least 48 hours before release.
The penalty depends on the alleged or proven underlying offense. If the release involves murder, rape, or a covered sex offense against a minor, the responsible official faces 10 to 25 years in prison. A release involving a serious violent felony carries five to 10 years. A release involving any other federal or state offense carries 30 days to six months. Fines may also apply.
The bill adds the new offense as section 1925 of title 18, defines the covered terms, updates the chapter table, and includes a severability rule preserving the remainder if one provision or application is invalidated.
Who Benefits and How
DHS immigration-enforcement officers benefit from earlier notice and a better opportunity to assume custody before release. Federal immigration operations gain a criminal enforcement tool against policies that block notification. State and local jail officers receive a uniform federal notice rule when DHS makes a formal request. Communities and crime victims may face lower risk when immigration authorities can act before a covered release.
Who Bears the Burden and How
Senior state and local executive officials face personal criminal exposure for knowingly maintaining or enforcing a policy that restricts the requested notice. State and local governments with noncooperation policies must revise those policies and train release staff. Jail notification officers must identify DHS requests and provide release information as early as practicable. Covered noncitizens face increased risk of transfer to immigration custody. Federal investigators, attorneys, and courts must prove responsibility, knowledge, causation, and the applicable offense category.
Key Provisions
- Creates a federal crime for official interference with DHS release-notification requests.
- Requires notice as early as practicable and ordinarily at least 48 hours before release.
- Applies to noncitizens charged with or convicted of any federal or state crime.
- Assigns liability to the senior executive official responsible for the obstructing policy or action.
- Establishes a 10-to-25-year range for releases involving specified murder, rape, or child-sex offenses.
- Establishes a five-to-10-year range for releases involving serious violent felonies.
- Establishes a 30-day-to-six-month range for releases involving other crimes.
- Protects the remaining Act through a severability clause.
Evidence Chain:
This summary is generated from the full bill text using AI analysis. Expand "Detailed Analysis" below for identified beneficiaries/burden bearers with clause-level evidence links.
At a Glance
What This Bill Does
Creates federal criminal penalties for the senior state or local executive official responsible for a policy that knowingly restricts compliance with a formal DHS request for advance notice before releasing a noncitizen charged with or convicted of a crime.
Key Policy Areas
Immigration Enforcement, State and Local Government, Criminal Law, Jail Release Notification, Federalism
Primary Purpose
Creates federal criminal penalties for the senior state or local executive official responsible for a policy that knowingly restricts compliance with a formal DHS request for advance notice before releasing a noncitizen charged with or convicted of a crime.
Policy Domains
Section 2 criminal offense for restricting DHS release notice
Identified Gains
- DHS immigration-enforcement officers
- Federal immigration-enforcement operations
- State jail officers complying with DHS requests
- Local jail officers complying with DHS requests
- Crime victims concerned about covered releases
Identified Costs
- State executive officials responsible for noncooperation policies
- Local executive officials responsible for noncooperation policies
- State jail notification officers
- Local jail notification officers
- Covered noncitizens scheduled for release
- Federal attorneys prosecuting section 1925 cases
- Federal courts hearing section 1925 cases
Sponsors
Legislative Progress
In CommitteeReferred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Mr. Gooden introduced the following bill; which was referred to …
Stakeholder Effects
cui bono?How this legislation distributes effects. Mention counts reflect frequency, not effect magnitude.
Local executive officials responsible for noncooperation policies, Local jail notification officers, State executive officials responsible for noncooperation policies
DHS immigration-enforcement officers, Federal courts hearing section 1925 cases, Federal immigration-enforcement operations
Positive-direction: DHS immigration-enforcement officers, Federal immigration-enforcement operations
Negative-direction: Federal courts hearing section 1925 cases
Covered noncitizens scheduled for release
Crime victims concerned about covered releases
Federal attorneys prosecuting section 1925 cases
Bill Structure & Actor Mappings
Who is "The Secretary" in each section?
- "dhs"
- → Department of Homeland Security making a formal immigration-law request
- "custodian"
- → State or local authority scheduling release of a covered noncitizen
- "responsible_official"
- → Most senior state or local executive official overseeing the challenged policy or action
Key Definitions
Terms defined in this bill
A noncitizen charged with or convicted of a federal or state crime.
Release-date and time notice supplied as early as practicable and, unless impossible, at least 48 hours before release.
The most senior state or local executive official charged with overseeing execution of the challenged law, policy, practice, or action.
We use a combination of our own taxonomy and classification in addition to large language models to assess meaning and potential beneficiaries. High confidence means strong textual evidence. Always verify with the original bill text.
Learn more about our methodology