Sanctuary policies, adopted by various cities and states, limit cooperation between local law enforcement and federal immigration authorities, particularly ICE. These policies are designed to build trust with immigrant communities, encouraging them to report crimes or engage with public services without fear of deportation. However, critics argue that such policies violate 8 U.S.C. § 1324, which prohibits harboring or concealing illegal aliens from federal authorities, and 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which mandates cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
In Nashville, Mayor Freddie O’Connell has supported policies that critics claim align with sanctuary principles, such as limiting local police involvement in immigration enforcement. While Nashville does not officially designate itself a “sanctuary city,” its practices have drawn scrutiny for allegedly protecting undocumented immigrants. Similarly, Boston Mayor Michelle Wu has staunchly defended her city’s sanctuary status, emphasizing policies like the Boston Trust Act, which restricts local police from detaining individuals based solely on immigration status. Wu’s public defiance, including her sharp rebuke of Tom Homan’s threats to “bring hell” to Boston, has fueled accusations that she prioritizes undocumented immigrants over federal law.
Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker has been a vocal advocate for Illinois’ sanctuary state policies, codified in the 2017 Illinois Trust Act, which prohibits local law enforcement from assisting ICE in routine immigration enforcement absent a federal criminal warrant. Critics, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, argue that these policies shield criminal aliens, citing cases like the release of Martin Chavez-Lomeli Jr., a convicted murderer, despite an ICE detainer. Likewise, New York Governor Kathy Hochul has faced criticism for supporting New York’s sanctuary policies, which restrict state agencies from cooperating with ICE under a 2017 executive order by former Governor Andrew Cuomo. However, Hochul has publicly stated she would cooperate with ICE to deport undocumented immigrants who commit serious crimes, creating a nuanced stance that complicates the narrative of outright lawbreaking.
The core allegation against these officials is that their policies obstruct federal immigration enforcement, thereby violating federal law. Tom Homan has been particularly vocal, accusing sanctuary leaders of “knowingly harboring” illegal aliens and threatening legal action against officials who impede ICE operations. House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, alongside Mark Green, has echoed these sentiments, summoning Pritzker, Hochul, and others to testify on their sanctuary policies, framing them as a threat to public safety.
The legal basis for accusing these officials of breaking the law hinges on interpretations of federal statutes. 8 U.S.C. § 1324 makes it a felony to knowingly harbor or conceal an illegal alien, with penalties including up to five years in prison per offense. However, applying this statute to sanctuary policies is contentious. Courts have historically interpreted “harboring” as requiring active concealment, not merely a refusal to assist ICE. For example, in United States v. Costello (2012), the Seventh Circuit clarified that harboring involves affirmative acts to hide individuals from authorities, not passive non-cooperation. Sanctuary policies, which typically involve declining to honor ICE detainers without judicial warrants, may not meet this threshold.
Moreover, 8 U.S.C. § 1373, which prohibits restrictions on sharing immigration status information with federal authorities, has been challenged on Tenth Amendment grounds. The Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. NCAA (2018) suggests that the federal government cannot commandeer state resources to enforce federal law, supporting the argument that states and cities can legally limit cooperation with ICE. Illinois and New York have cited this principle in defending their sanctuary laws, arguing that they protect state sovereignty and due process.
Critics of the accusations against O’Connell, Wu, Pritzker, and Hochul argue that these officials are not breaking the law but exercising their constitutional authority to prioritize local resources and community safety. Supporters of sanctuary policies, including Wu, point to data showing that cities like Boston have lower crime rates despite their policies, undermining claims that they shield dangerous criminals. However, high-profile cases of crimes committed by undocumented immigrants, such as the murder of Emma Shafer in Illinois, have bolstered critics’ arguments that sanctuary policies endanger public safety.
Tom Homan, as border czar, has vowed to target sanctuary jurisdictions, threatening to prosecute officials who “knowingly harbor” illegal aliens. While Homan’s rhetoric is aggressive, his authority to directly prosecute is limited, as criminal charges would require action by the Department of Justice. Potential penalties under 8 U.S.C. § 1324 include fines and imprisonment, but successful prosecutions would need to prove intent to conceal illegal aliens, a high bar given the legal ambiguities.
Mark Green, as Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, lacks direct enforcement power but can influence policy through oversight and legislation. Green has supported efforts to withhold federal funding from sanctuary jurisdictions, a tactic Trump has also endorsed. The Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens Executive Order, signed by Trump on April 28, 2025, aims to penalize sanctuary cities by restricting federal grants, which could financially strain cities like Nashville and Boston. Additionally, Green’s committee could push for legislation to strengthen federal authority over sanctuary jurisdictions, though such measures would face legal and political hurdles.
The accusations against O’Connell, Wu, Pritzker, and Hochul reflect a broader clash between federal and local authority over immigration policy. While Homan and Green frame sanctuary policies as lawbreaking, the legal foundation for these claims is shaky, and courts may uphold the right of states and cities to limit cooperation with ICE. Penalties, if imposed, are more likely to be financial—through withheld federal funds—than criminal, given the challenges of prosecuting officials under existing statutes.
This debate underscores deeper tensions about immigration, public safety, and federalism. Sanctuary leaders argue that their policies protect vulnerable communities and reduce crime, while critics insist they undermine the rule of law. As Homan and Green push for stricter enforcement, the resolution will likely depend on judicial rulings and political negotiations, with significant implications for the balance of power in American governance.
Editorial comments expressed in this column are the sole opinion of the writer.
8 U.S.C. § 1324, 8 U.S.C. § 1373
United States v. Costello (7th Cir. 2012)
Murphy v. NCAA (2018)
