Throughout history, the idea of “claiming sanctuary” has been central to the idea of upholding democracy in a society by sheltering citizens and minor criminals from unlawful pursuit. The power to act as a sanctuary was originally given to churches and other significant religious locations in medieval England, as they were considered holy places where violence should not occur in order to avoid sacrilege. To take advantage of this power, the person being pursued would have to go to the church and declare sanctuary to be allowed to stay under its protection. This came with a caveat of confessing his or her crime to a representative of the King and being sentenced to a period of exile outside of the country to avoid the death penalty. The laws that allowed for protection by claiming sanctuary were ultimately abolished by 1624.
In more modern times, the idea of sanctuary evolved to become more secular and specific to immigration, offering refugees the opportunity to be protected from special immigration police and law enforcement. The idea of legal sanctuary in the United States began in the 1980s as a way to offer help to refugees from El Salvador and Guatemala who arrived in California and New Mexico and would have been sent back under the 1980 Refugee Act. Help was offered mostly by churches and synagogues in these states but later expanded across the country. The main purpose of the Central American Sanctuary movement was not just to spread awareness of the issues that refugees were facing, but also to limit cooperation with the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) that was conducting raids in their communities. The spread of this movement led to the Sanctuary Trials of 1985 in which many of the defendants were members of the movement that had been reported to the police and then arrested. While many defendants and refugees lost their cases, they still provided a foundation for improved policies aimed at helping refugees nationwide. In addition to individual action, some cities like Los Angeles and San Francisco passed resolutions to become “Cities of Refuge” for refugees, affirming that city law enforcement and officials would not cooperate with INS raids or allow discrimination against refugees, thus creating a precedent for a separation from federal policy on immigration enforcement at the state and local level. Despite local support, these resolutions were not enacted into law.
Source: usicegov / Wikimedia Commons. Licensed under Public Domain
San Francisco is still currently listed as a sanctuary city through its “Due Process for All” ordinance passed in 2013, notably focusing on the lack of due process and fair trials in immigration cases in the face of arrests by ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) raids, as well as withholding data of the release of undocumented immigrants in police custody, ensuring that the trust between the public and local law enforcement is maintained. Although there is no universal legal definition of a sanctuary city or sanctuary state, these are two of the main criteria for consideration according to the United States Department of Justice. The definition of a sanctuary city was expanded by the American Immigration Council to also prohibit collaboration between these cities and the national government on the detention of immigrants, specifically preventing the signing of agreements on their detention within the territory and the use of local facilities for this purpose. Other criteria, especially those relating to the use of state and local funds to aid ICE in its activities, have led to backlash and retaliative Executive Orders from the national government in order to force compliance. The number of such controversial cases has increased since 2017, when the federal government called for more crackdowns on immigration policies, despite strong opposition.
Source: Sean Spicer / Wikimedia Commons. Licensed under Public Domain
The first of these new crackdowns came with the proclamation of Executive Order 13768, titled “Enhancing Public Safety in the Interior of the United States,” in January 2017. It was also one of the first to specifically target sanctuary cities as potential violations of federal immigration law in an effort to prevent cities from implementing policies that would protect immigrants in their jurisdiction. Section 9 of the Order specifically prohibits the receipt of federal funding by sanctuary cities and states and threatens to take action against them if they do not comply with federal immigration policies. This Executive Order was denounced by federal courts after The City and County of San Francisco v. Trump (2018), and was found to violate the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, which allows states to maintain separate laws from the federal government. The Order was upheld by the Court, as no concrete action to withhold funding from sanctuary cities had been taken yet, but it was officially revoked by President Biden in 2021 with Executive Order 13993. A similar case, United States v. California (2019), was brought to the Supreme Court to challenge California state laws regarding sanctuary policies in general, along with those that prevented cooperation on inspections of detention centers in the state. Only the latter part of this case was upheld by the Supreme Court, setting a precedent for further controversy, especially as the number of detentions and detention centers increase around the country.
A second set of Executive Orders against sanctuary cities was issued in January 2025 after the reelection of Trump to the presidency. Among these is Executive Order 14159, “Protecting the American People Against Invasion,” which calls for reinforcement of laws like the Immigration and Naturalization Act and existing law enforcement, as well as increased funding for detention centers. Section 17 specifically targets sanctuary cities, claiming that sanctuary cities’ policies violate federal law and could be subject to legal action. Soon after the release of these Orders, the city of San Francisco and many other sanctuary cities sued the Trump administration again, claiming that they continued to violate the 10th Amendment in addition to overreach of Separation of Powers in the federal government, and violations of the 5th and 14th Amendments that allow for due process and fair trials for all in the United States. The case is still ongoing, with the last update favoring sanctuary cities and temporarily blocking the Executive Order. Thanks to the partial success of San Francisco v. Trump (2017), and many other cases from Trump’s first term, the precedent set by cases like these can help to keep presidential authority in check while also ensuring that states can protect their constitutional right to maintain separate laws, even if they directly contradict the federal government.
Other major cities like Chicago and New York have also been targeted by these Executive Orders due to their status as sanctuary cities. In his second term, the Trump Administration also sued many of these cities individually in cases such as United States v. Illinois and Chicago (2025) and United States v. New York City (2025). Both of these cases target sanctuary cities for the same reasons as San Francisco: that being a sanctuary city impedes the federal government’s increase in law enforcement against immigrants, but both also set further precedent for the scope of actions allowed in this context. The dismissal of the case United States v. Illinois and Chicago in July 2025 not only protected Chicago’s right to remain a sanctuary city, but also prevented the federal government from deploying the Texas division of the National Guard to Illinois as law enforcement for the purpose of immigration. In United States v. New York City (2025), in addition to its sanctuary city laws, the city was also sued for its Green Light Law, which allows anyone, regardless of citizenship status, to receive a basic New York State drivers’ license and prevents the Department of Motor Vehicles from sharing sensitive information with ICE. This case was also ultimately dismissed.
Source: Fibonacci Blue / Wikimedia Commons. Licensed under CC BY 4.0
Despite some of the positive outcomes of some of these cases against the Executive Actions, there is still ICE activity in each of these cities, including ongoing arrests, construction of new detention centers, and deportations, though the number still differs in each city. Between 2021 and 2025, ICE made 11,534 arrests in San Francisco. The number of arrests varied in other sanctuary cities. Smaller ones like Seattle and Philadelphia also had a lower number of arrests than average with 10,446 and 10,994 respectively. In contrast, major cities like Los Angeles, Chicago, and New York had many more arrests that numbered between 25,000 and 35,000 in that period. There has also been a sharp increase in the number of arrests since January 2025.
The state of California is also home to many detention centers, known for being unsanitary and crowded, with some constructed as recently as October 2025. They were often built by private corporations without the correct permits and without oversight from either state or local government, which allowed them to bypass both the law and sanctuary city policies. The construction of these detention centers has also been met with protests, both against ICE and the centers themselves, although protesters have not succeeded in closing them down or making any progress against development of new centers. This can be seen as a result of circumvention of state and local law by corporations that have been empowered to act in favor of the federal government and its power to act against immigration through ICE without oversight, which leads to sanctuary cities weakening over time. As sanctuary city policies are not backed by law, they have little chance against the federal government, even when taking legal action, as in City and County of San Francisco v. Trump (2025). While the success in the outcome of these cases is instrumental in working to stop overreach of the federal government, the power of sanctuary cities is still largely symbolic. Their existence and future codification is still extremely important, as not only is it protected by the constitution, but it also helps to maintain democracy by ensuring that the opposition has a voice and the intention to treat everyone who lives in the United States in an equal manner.
Questions:
Where is the legal boundary between a state “refusing to cooperate” and a state “obstructing” federal law enforcement?
To what extent do protests against federal laws reflect deeper constitutional disagreements about federalism?
Should Congress legislate more clearly to define the limits of federal authority in areas like immigration, or would this risk further constitutional conflict?
Readings:
Hagan, A., & Nowacki, J. (2026). Immigration Enforcement by Local Agencies: Policy and Organization of Policing. Crime & Delinquency
René Kreichauf (04 Feb 2026): Dismantling urban sanctuary and the
‘migrant crisis’: the political economy of solidarity and providing support to asylum-seeking
migrants in New York City, City, DOI: 10.1080/13604813.2025.2604432
“Stop Dangerous Sanctuary Cities Act” Introduced to the US Senate by Senator Ted Cruz (TX) on February 24, 2026. https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/senate-bill/685/text
_Enforcement_and_Removal_Operations%27_(ERO)_from_Baltimore,_Maryland_%22ride_along%22_on_2_August_2023.jpg){kind=link}
