Federal Limits

Limit 01 of nine · Resources

No state resources used

287(g) deputizations: ~135 → 2,179 in eighteen months.

The problem

Washington can’t force a state to carry out federal civil enforcement — so it started paying for it. A DHS salary-and-bounty program effective Oct 1, 2025 now funds local officers per arrest, and deputization agreements jumped roughly fifteenfold to 2,179 in eighteen months. Because paying isn’t compelling, the courts don’t reach it — only a state law declining to take part does.

What the law does

Bars the state’s own officers, money, equipment, and facilities from being used for federal civil enforcement.

Where it stands

Where it stands — all 52 jurisdictions16 of 52 have written a limit of this kind
written in full written in part not written red underline = state law mandates cooperation
Find my state all 52 jurisdictions, with the statute where one exists
  • Alaskanot written
  • Alabamanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Arkansasnot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Arizonanot writtenstate law mandates cooperationSB 1070 §2(B) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Californiawritten in fullSB 54 / Gov. Code §7284.6 + AB 4 TRUST Act
  • Coloradowritten in partC.R.S. § 24-76.6-102(2),(2.5) (HB19-1124, as amended by SB25-276 §15) + C.R.S. § 24-74-103 (SB21-131, as amended by SB25-276 §8)
  • Connecticutwritten in fullCGS §54-192h(b), as amended by P.A. 25-29 §4 (Sub. H.B. 7259), effective 2025-10-01 [orig. P.A. 13-155] — (b)(1)(B) resources bar + (b)(1)(E) "perform any function of a federal immigration authority"; reinforced prospectively by P.A. 26-14 (Sub. S.B. 397) §§7, 13, effective 2026-10-01
  • District of Columbiawritten in partD.C. Code § 24-211.07(a)(2), (a)(4)(A) (Sanctuary Values Act, 2021)
  • Delawarenot written
  • Floridanot writtenstate law mandates cooperationSB 168 / F.S. §908.101-.104 (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Georgianot writtenstate law mandates cooperationHB 87 (2011) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Hawaiiwritten in fullAct 141, SLH 2026 (SB2057 CD1) §§-1, -3(1), -3(7), -4
  • Iowanot writtenstate law mandates cooperationIowa Code Ch. 27A (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Idahonot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Illinoiswritten in full5 ILCS 805/15 (TRUST Act) + Way Forward Act (PA 102-0234) + Right to Privacy in Workplace Act
  • Indiananot writtenstate law mandates cooperationIC 5-2-18.2 (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Kansasnot writtenstate law mandates cooperationS Sub HB 2372 (2026) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Kentuckynot written
  • Louisiananot writtenstate law mandates cooperationLa. R.S. 33:81-85 (Act 314/SB 208) — sanctuary-policy prohibition, cooperation mandate, detainer duties (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Massachusettswritten in partMGL c.147 §64(b)(2)(iii) + §64(c)(1), inserted by St. 2026, c. 163, §7
  • Marylandwritten in partHB 711 (2026) Data Privacy Act (DMV/data firewall, partial basis) + SB 791/Ch. 872 (2026) §8-805(B)(2)(I) + CP §5-104(b)(2)(i) status-inquiry prohibitions
  • Mainewritten in fullLD 1971 / PL Ch. 517 (2026) — 5 MRSA §4763(1)(A): agency money/personnel bar, state+local
  • Michigannot written
  • Minnesotanot written
  • Missourinot writtenstate law mandates cooperationRSMo 67.307 (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Mississippinot writtenstate law mandates cooperationHB 538 (2026) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Montananot writtenstate law mandates cooperationMCA 2-1-602 (state law mandates cooperation)
  • North Carolinanot writtenstate law mandates cooperationHB 10 (2024) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • North Dakotanot writtenstate law mandates cooperationNDCC 44-08-25 (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Nebraskanot writtenEO 25-01 (Pillen)
  • New Hampshirenot writtenstate law mandates cooperationHB 511 + SB 62 (state law mandates cooperation)
  • New Jerseywritten in fullP.L.2026, c.5 (A4071, 222nd Leg.) § 3.c — personnel/assistance bar, state/county/municipal
  • New Mexicowritten in partHB 9 Sec. 3 (2026) — Signed by Governor, Chaptered, Chapter 5 (2026)
  • Nevadanot written
  • New Yorkwritten in partExec. Law §§ 319, 319-a + Gen. Mun. Law §§ 996, 996-a (Ch. 55, Laws of 2026, Part LL, Subpart C)
  • Ohionot written
  • Oklahomanot writtenHB 4156 / Title 21 §1795 (2024)
  • Oregonwritten in fullORS 181A.820 (1987) + Sanctuary Promise Act (HB 3265, 2021)
  • Pennsylvanianot written
  • Rhode Islandnot written
  • South Carolinanot writtenstate law mandates cooperationAct 280 (2008) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • South Dakotanot writtenstate law mandates cooperationSB 7 (2025) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Tennesseenot writtenstate law mandates cooperationPublic Chapter 973 (2018) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Texasnot writtenstate law mandates cooperationSB 4 (2017) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Utahnot writtenstate law mandates cooperationHB 497 (2011) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Virginiawritten in partSB 783 (signed 2026-04-22, eff. 2026-07-01) - statutory limits on state/local cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement (partial). EO 12 supplementary (non-durable).
  • Vermontwritten in part20 V.S.A. § 2366 (FIP) + Act 75 (2023)
  • Washingtonwritten in fullKeep Washington Working Act / E2SB 5497 (2019) Ch. 440 / RCW 10.93.160 + RCW 43.17.425
  • Wisconsinnot written
  • West Virginianot writtenstate law mandates cooperationWV Code §15-16-3 (mandatory duties of law enforcement agencies regarding immigration detainer) [§15-16-2 = prohibited policies] (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Wyomingnot writtenstate law mandates cooperationHB 133 (Feb 2025) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Puerto Riconot written

Methodology v3.5 · scored Aug 20 2026

The model language

“No state or local agency, and no officer, employee, or contractor of any state or local agency, shall use moneys, facilities, property, equipment, supplies, or personnel to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, report, or arrest any person for purposes of federal civil immigration enforcement.”

— Section 1 · Personnel and Resource Limits, The Federal Limits Act
Read the full model bill →

What we propose

Bar any state or local agency from using money, staff, facilities, or equipment for federal civil enforcement — including honoring civil detainers without a judge’s warrant — while still complying with valid criminal warrants. Model: California SB 54 (§7284.6); Illinois Way Forward Act.

Who’s already done it

15 states + D.C. have a version; 8 at full strength — CA, CT, HI, IL, ME, NJ, OR, WA. California’s SB 54 (2017) is the tested model — challenged in federal court and upheld.

On the record

Status: mixed — courts struck the money-coercion vector; the paid-personnel vector is surging unchecked.

One of nine.
Not the whole fight.

See where your state stands on all nine limits, or read the model bill section that closes this one.

Check your state → ← Back to the Nine