4 versions

CosmeticWhat changed in REFERRED IN SENATEcompared with ENGROSSED IN HOUSE (Jun 12, 2025)

Technical corrections only. v4 updates the Clerk's signature with a full name and includes information about the bill's referral to the Senate. No substantive policy changes were made between v3 and v4.

H.R. 2056119th CongressIntroduced Mar 11, 2025

District of Columbia Federal Immigration Compliance Act of 2025

Passed HouseImmigrationMajor

View bill text

Sponsor: Rep. Higgins, Clay [R-LA-3]
Committees: Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (primary)
Last action: Jun 12, 2025

Bottom line

The bill compels the District of Columbia to cooperate fully with federal immigration enforcement by prohibiting local policies that restrict information sharing or compliance with federal detainer requests.

What it actually does

This bill mandates that the District of Columbia (D.C.) government cannot enact or enforce any policy that prohibits or restricts its entities or officials from sharing immigration status information with federal, state, or local governments. It also requires D.C. to comply with lawful requests from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for immigration detainers or notifications about the release of individuals, effectively preventing D.C. from operating as a 'sanctuary jurisdiction' regarding immigration enforcement.

Proponents argue

Proponents argue that the bill ensures federal immigration laws are uniformly applied and enforced across all jurisdictions, including the nation's capital. They contend that 'sanctuary' policies undermine national security, public safety, and the rule of law by impeding cooperation between local and federal authorities, making it harder to apprehend and deport individuals who may pose a risk or have committed crimes. They believe D.C. should not be exempt from federal mandates.

Opponents contend

Opponents argue that the bill infringes upon the District of Columbia's local autonomy and self-governance, dictating local policy from Congress. They contend that 'sanctuary' policies foster trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement, encouraging reporting of crimes without fear of deportation, thereby improving overall public safety. They also argue that forcing local officials to act as federal immigration agents diverts local resources and can lead to racial profiling and civil rights violations.

The bill text is exceptionally brief and can be read in under a minute, but its implications are significant and warrant substantial consideration beyond the literal text.

Section 2

Prohibition on District of Columbia Serving as Sanctuary Jurisdiction

prominently featuredstraightforward

This section explicitly forbids the District of Columbia from having any statute, ordinance, policy, or practice that prevents its government entities or officials from sharing information about an individual's citizenship or immigration status with federal, state, or local governments. It also prohibits D.C. from restricting compliance with lawful requests from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for immigration detainers or notifications about the release of individuals, as authorized by sections 236 and 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

GroupImpactMechanismScale

GroupDistrict of Columbia Government and its officialsImpactMandated cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.MechanismLegal prohibition on non-cooperation policies.ScaleApplies to all D.C. government entities and officials.

GroupImmigrant residents of the District of Columbia (both lawful and unlawful)ImpactIncreased exposure to federal immigration enforcement actions.MechanismLocal officials required to share information and comply with detainers.ScaleAffects all immigrants within D.C.

GroupFederal immigration enforcement agencies (DHS, ICE)ImpactEnhanced ability to enforce federal immigration laws within D.C.MechanismMandated cooperation from D.C. government.ScaleImproves operational efficiency in D.C.

Supporters argue

Supporters argue that this provision is essential to ensure that federal immigration laws are not undermined by local policies. They believe it closes loopholes that allow individuals subject to immigration enforcement to avoid detection and deportation, thereby enhancing public safety and national security.

Critics contend

Opponents contend that this provision overrides local democratic decisions and forces D.C. to adopt policies that its residents and elected officials may not support. They argue it could lead to a decrease in trust between immigrant communities and local police, making it harder to solve crimes and potentially leading to racial profiling.

Tradeoffs

The provision balances the federal government's interest in uniform immigration enforcement with the District of Columbia's desire for local self-governance and its chosen approach to community policing and immigrant relations. It creates a tension between federal authority and local autonomy.

About this analysis. AI-Generated from the official bill text and available committee reports. Gaps in available data are noted explicitly. Verify important details with the official Congress.gov record.