The 9 Standards
Every state earns 0, 1, or 2 points on each of nine standards. The score reflects what the state's law actually does -- not what an executive order promises, not what an agency practices, but the statutory architecture in force. Standards flow in sequence from foundational (operational separation) to specific (federal agent identification). Click any standard to see the criteria.
STD-01
Personnel & Resource Limits
State officers, money, and facilities withdrawn from federal civil enforcement.
Whether the state has prohibited its officers, employees, money, equipment, facilities, and communications from being used in federal civil immigration enforcement operations. Federal civil enforcement relies on state and local infrastructure to operate; state legislation can sever that operational dependency.
0
No statutory protections.
1
Partial: one dimension (personnel or resources) covered, or both with major carveouts.
2
Both personnel and resources covered statewide, binding state and local agencies, with limited or no carveouts. Anchor states: CA, IL, CO, WA.
STD-02
Cooperation Contract Prohibitions
287(g), IGSAs, and joint task force agreements banned.
Whether the state has banned the formal agreements that authorize federal civil immigration enforcement to operate through state and local infrastructure: 287(g) agreements, intergovernmental detention contracts (IGSAs), joint task force agreements, and federally conditioned grants. As of April 30, 2026, more than 1,770 active 287(g) agreements span 39 states — up from about 135 in January 2025, an expansion of over 1,200 percent. State legislation is the only mechanism that can constrain this expansion.
0
No statutory prohibition on any contract category.
1
Partial: some contract prohibitions, but either 287(g) is not banned, or 287(g) is banned alone without breadth.
2
287(g) explicitly prohibited and at least one other contract category prohibited (IGSAs, joint task force agreements, or conditioned federal grants). 287(g) prohibition is the lynchpin and is required for full credit.
STD-03
Sensitive Location Protections
Schools, hospitals, courthouses, churches off-limits to federal civil enforcement.
Whether the state has legislatively protected specific physical places from federal civil enforcement access: courthouses, schools, hospitals, childcare facilities, religious institutions, and workplaces. Federal sensitive-location protections were rescinded January 20, 2025; state legislation is the only mechanism that restores these protections within state borders.
0
No statutory location protections.
1
Partial: 1–3 location types covered, or coverage with major carveouts.
2
Four or more of six location types covered with judicial-warrant access standard. Anchor states: CA, CO, CT, IL, MD, ME.
STD-04
Private Detention Industry Restrictions
Private contractors prohibited from operating immigration detention.
Whether the state has prohibited private contractors from operating immigration detention facilities within state borders. By early 2026, the federal government had structured up to $65 billion in detention-construction capacity through a U.S. Navy procurement vehicle (WEXMAC), with more than 130 contractors able to receive work without site-by-site competitive bidding. State law is the only mechanism that can prevent private operators from building immigration detention in a state.
0
No prohibition, or prohibition fully struck down or fully enjoined.
1
Partial: prohibitions limited to new contracts, sunset provisions, scope carveouts, or statute partially enjoined.
2
Comprehensive prohibition, no sunset clause, narrow or no carveouts, statute in force. Anchor states: IL, OR.
STD-05
Information Firewalls
State data systems firewalled from federal civil enforcement requests.
Whether the state has firewalled its data systems from federal civil enforcement across five domains: voter rolls, DMV / driver records, school records, health records, and professional licensing. Since January 2025, federal demand letters for unredacted voter rolls have gone to 48 states. States with statutory firewalls refused and have been winning in federal court; states without them complied. This standard isn't theoretical — it is the active legal terrain.
0
No statutory data firewalls.
1
1–2 data domains firewalled with hard-denial language.
2
Three or more of five data domains firewalled with hard-denial statutory language. Anchor states: CA (5 domains), IL (5), CO (4), WA, NY, NJ, CT, MD, OR.
STD-06
Warrant Requirement
Judicial warrant required before any detention, hold, or transfer.
Whether the state requires a judicial warrant before honoring federal civil enforcement detention or transfer requests, and whether rights notifications are required during enforcement encounters. Federal courts have repeatedly found warrantless civil immigration arrests violate the Fourth Amendment, including a Seventh Circuit ruling in May 2026. The judicial warrant requirement provides the procedural floor.
0
State honors administrative detainers without judicial warrant.
1
Warrant requirement only, or partial coverage of one dimension.
2
Judicial warrant required statewide for any detention/hold/transfer for federal civil enforcement, no administrative-detainer exception, plus rights notifications mandated. Most widely adopted standard — eleven jurisdictions meet it: CA, CT, DC, IL, MA, ME, NJ, NY, OR, WA, CO.
STD-07
Documentation Transparency
Public reporting of cooperation activity by all state and local agencies.
Whether the state requires public reporting of cooperation activity by state and local agencies, on a regular schedule, with sufficient scope to support oversight. In April 2026 the Government Accountability Office found that the Department of Homeland Security cannot demonstrate its oversight programs work; state-level reporting creates the documentary record that enables both citizen oversight and state-level enforcement.
0
No reporting requirement.
1
Partial: ad-hoc reporting with no schedule, some agencies only, narrow scope, or no public posting.
2
Mandatory reporting on regular schedule (annual minimum, quarterly preferred), all state and local agencies, full scope (communications, custody transfers, federal access requests, contracts), publicly posted. Anchor states: CO (quarterly), CA (annual SB 54 Values Act report).
STD-08
Enforcement & Remedies
Private right of action + statutory AG enforcement authority.
Whether the state has created legal mechanisms that make cooperation laws enforceable: a private right of action allowing residents to sue, and statutory authority for the state Attorney General to investigate and enforce cooperation laws against non-compliant local officials. Laws on the books mean little without mechanisms to enforce them.
0
Neither mechanism in statute.
1
One mechanism (PRA only OR statutory AG authority only).
2
Both mechanisms in statute: PRA with damages or injunctive relief AND statutory AG enforcement authority specifically over cooperation laws. Anchor states: CT (HB 7212), OR (HB 3265 + Sanctuary Promise Act).
STD-09
Federal Agent Identification & Recording
Visible ID + mask prohibition + recording requirement for all law enforcement.
Whether the state requires visible identification and recording during law enforcement operations within state borders, applied to all law enforcement officers including federal civil enforcement. Eighty percent of Americans support officer identification requirements; eighty-six percent support body cameras. Federal courts in 2026 have found masked federal civil enforcement arrests violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. This is a fast-moving standard — re-evaluated quarterly.
0
No identification or recording statute.
1
Partial: 1–2 of three dimensions covered, or comprehensive but with Supremacy Clause vulnerability.
2
Visible identification (badge, name, number, agency) + mask prohibition for all law enforcement on duty + recording requirement (body cam mandate covers state/local interactions OR citizen-recording authorization), framed for all law enforcement, with civil enforcement mechanism. Anchor states: OR (HB 4138), CT (SB 397), NJ (mask ban + ID).
Three-Layer Pressure Model
A state's grade tells you what its law does. The pressure model tells you what's happening on the ground. Every event we ingest is classified into one of three layers; the mix tells the real story.
LAYER 1
Force
Federal pressure events: arrests, deportations, 287(g) signings, contract awards, executive orders, agency directives. The denominator that tells you how much pressure a state is under.
LAYER 2
Resistance
State pushback: enacted bills, AG guidance, court rulings, agency policies, protests, advocacy actions. The numerator that tells you how much a state is pushing back.
LAYER 3
Cost
State spending tied to federal operations: detention contracts, fusion center fees, 287(g) reimbursement, ICE-shared infrastructure. The often-hidden ledger of who actually pays.
The three layers combine into a pressure tier
Minimal
Standard
Elevated
High
Surge
Grade Scale
Total score across the nine standards (0–18) maps to a letter grade. The scale weights toward stronger protection: an A demands real enforcement on multiple fronts, not just statutory language.
Mandate-cooperation flag. Some states have mandate-cooperation statutes — laws that affirmatively require state and local officers to assist federal civil enforcement. The flag does not change the score (score measures protection level, not state intent), but it appears on every state's report card to distinguish hostile states from passive ones in the editorial layer.
Court-status modifier (v3.3). A preliminary injunction — partial or full — is flagged in the per-state narrative, but the score holds: a protective statute that survives in part is still a statute the legislature enacted. Only a permanent injunction or a full strike-down (final judgment, appeals exhausted) drops the affected standard to 0, unless severance preserves protective provisions. This applies most often to Standard 4 (Private Detention) and Standard 9 (Federal Agent ID) under Supremacy Clause challenges. Currently: California STD-04 (AB 32 struck down) and New Jersey STD-04 (AB 5207 struck down) drop to 0; California STD-09 (SB 805 under a preliminary injunction pending appeal, Apr 2026) is flagged but holds at its statutory base of 2.
v3.3 — Durability Principle (May 2026)
v3.3 keeps v3.2's binding principle (functional protection > structural template) and adds a second: durability. A protection scores only if it lives in durable binding state law — a codified statute, a state constitutional provision, or a state Supreme Court ruling interpreting them. Executive instruments (executive orders, Attorney General directives/opinions/guidance without statutory backing, agency or model policies) can be rescinded by a successor administration without legislative action, so they appear in a state's narrative but no longer score. Rescindability is not durability.
- Durability principle. Only statutes, state constitutional provisions, and state Supreme Court rulings score. EO / AG-directive / agency-policy protections are narrative-only. This tightens the 0-point boundary on every standard — most visibly STD-02 (287(g)) and STD-06 (judicial warrant), where an EO- or AG-directive-only restriction now scores 0 (was 1 under v3.2).
- Court-status modifier simplified. A preliminary injunction (partial or full) is flagged in narrative and the score holds; only a permanent injunction or full strike-down drops the score to 0. This removes the score volatility the v3.2 "partial injunction docks a point" rule introduced.
- Re-score (2026-05-20). Six changes from the v3.2 baseline: NY STD-02, MA STD-03, and MN STD-02 each 1→0 (executive-instrument credit dropped); NJ STD-08 2→1 (statutory reporting/oversight but no codified AG enforcement reaching local LE); WA STD-05 2→1 (only the DMV domain is a durable statutory firewall); CA STD-09 1→2 (the SB 805 preliminary injunction now flags rather than docks). Virginia held — its 2026 statutes (SB 783 / HB 1441) are enacted law, not executive orders.
- Distribution unchanged. A=4, B=2, C=5, D=5, F=36. No grade flipped. National average 3.25 → 3.17 / 18. (Snapshot at v3.3 adoption, May 2026 — current grades and averages load live from the scorecard data on this page.)
v3.2 — Functional Protection Evolution (May 2026)
v3.2 evolved from the v3.1 architecture after a STD-07 audit revealed systemic misclassification (data-privacy statutes credited as cooperation reporting; executive orders treated as statutes; AG guidance treated as binding). A reverse audit of how state legislatures actually draft protective bills validated a binding principle: functional protection > structural template. FL credits protections that exist in state law and function in operation. Where a state has done the legislative work — through committee, legal review, political negotiation — FL credits it. The Federal Limits Act omnibus shows what comprehensive looks like; the scoring measures functional.
- v3.2 binding principle. Functional protection > structural template. The methodology tests whether the protection works, not whether it matches FL's preferred drafting template. This principle binds interpretation of all nine standards and prevents the structural-rigor drift that v3.1 surfaced.
- STD-02 2-point bar simplified. Was "287(g) ban AND at least one other contract type." Now "287(g) ban alone" — the lynchpin protection. Supplementary contract bans (IGSAs, JTF MOUs, federally conditioned grants) become per-state narrative material, not score-gating.
- STD-06 2-point bar simplified. Was "judicial warrant + rights notification." Now "judicial warrant alone." Rights notifications are valuable supplementary protection noted in narrative; they don't gate the structural warrant requirement.
- STD-06 judicial warrant defined. "Judicial warrant" means signed by a federal Article III judge. Administrative warrants (Forms I-200, I-205) and Immigration Judge orders (IJs are DOJ employees, not Article III) are explicitly excluded.
- STD-07 functional protection test. 2-point bar revised: state statute requires annual public reporting; reports publicly accessible; covers state and local LE; a reasonably-diligent reader can assess cooperation activity. Two new binding exclusions: PII-tracking exclusion (data-privacy statutes are STD-05 turf) and required instrument class (EO/guidance/model-policy don't satisfy — durability requirement).
- STD-08 either-mechanism rule. Was "both PRA AND statutory AG authority required." Now "either comprehensive PRA OR comprehensive AG authority with reach to local LE." AG authority limited to state agencies caps at 1/2 (cooperation happens at county jail and municipal LE level).
- STD-08 remedy floor. Damages OR injunctive relief — either alone satisfies. Declaratory-only does not.
- STD-09 framing requirement dropped as score-gate. Court-status modifier handles enjoined statutes (CA SB 627 + SB 805 enjoined April 2026). Framing is a drafting choice with litigation-survival implications, not a 2-point gate.
- STD-05 hard-denial defined. "Hard-denial" = mandatory ("shall not disclose"). Permissive language ("may decline") fails. §1373 carveouts are defensive, not weakening — required for bill survival and explicitly not penalized.
- STD-07 audit corrections applied. 7 states with v3.1 STD-07 scores resting on instruments that failed proper categorization: CO 2→0 (SB 21-131 is PII data-privacy), IL 1→2 (TRUST Act + AG WFA Public Report meets functional bar), MA 1→0 (EO not statute), CT 1→0 (HB 7212 signing unverified + AG memo non-binding), ME 1→0 (AG model policy reference, not reporting mandate), NM 1→0 (SB 36 is data-privacy), NY 1→0 (AG guidance only).
- STD-06 and STD-08 corrections applied. States with judicial warrant requirement docked under v3.1 for missing rights notification now clear 2/2: CO, ME, NJ, OR, WA. States with comprehensive AG enforcement authority that previously scored 1/2 because PRA was absent now clear 2/2: CA, CO, IL, NJ, NM, NY, WA. VT STD-08 1→0 (Converse-1983 strictly applied per §4.2 exclusion).
Sources & Transparency
Every cite is weighted. We don't treat a state legislature page the same as a partisan tweet. Source weight runs 0.0 (unsourced) to 1.0 (primary government document); only cites at or above 0.6 contribute to a score.
Anti-commandeering canon
The legal foundation across every standard. The federal government cannot conscript state and local officers to carry out its programs.
New York v. United States (1992) — Congress cannot compel states to enact or administer a federal program
Printz v. United States (1997) — federal government cannot commandeer state officers
Murphy v. NCAA (2018) — federal government cannot commandeer state legislatures
Audit Trail & Versioning
Every grade change is traceable. We preserve prior cites and stamp the methodology version into every state's data record. If you find an error, the path to challenge it is on the page, not buried in an inbox.
Challenge a score
Found an error in a grade? Send a sourced correction (with the cite) to hello@federallimits.org. We check it against the standard and either update the record or explain why we didn't. Corrections are credited.
Cite preservation
When v3.1 or v3.2 corrections lower or shift a score that prior methodology had assigned, we preserve the prior cite in the notes field rather than overwriting it. The audit trail of every change is part of the data, not a separate doc.
Versioning
Every state JSON stamps the methodology version it was scored under (methodology_version) and its schema_version. If you cite our data, cite the version too — methodology evolves and you want to be precise about which scoring round you're referencing.