Mapping the Legal Landscape From 2000 to 2021: State Sanctuary and Antisanctuary Policies, Local Sanctuary...

In recent years, states and localities have increasingly enacted sanctuary or antisanctuary laws to restrict or encourage, respectively, law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Such policies drive the magnitude of enforcement in a jurisdiction and may impact the health of immigrants and their communities. This article outlines the creation of a state and local sanctuary and antisanctuary policy data set to inform empirical research analyzing the impact of such policies.

The authors systematically searched state (2009-2021) and local (2000-2021) search engines collecting state antisanctuary, state sanctuary, city sanctuary, and city/county 287(g) policies; including documentation of state preemption of local policies. State policies were coded to identify provisions that are harmful or protective to immigrants and theoretically linked to health outcomes. Local policies were not coded owing to a lack of variation.

Between 2009 and 2021, 18 states enacted antisanctuary laws; 11 states and Washington, DC enacted sanctuary laws; 24 cities enacted sanctuary ordinances; and 176 localities (cities/counties) signed 287(g) agreements. State sanctuary and antisanctuary laws had some similar provisions but with opposing stances (e.g., requiring versus prohibiting compliance with detainer requests). Antisanctuary policies focused on punishment for noncompliance, whereas no state sanctuary policies included punitive measures.

This data set can inform future empirical research analyzing the impact of state and local immigration policies on health. This data set also sheds light on trends in immigration legislation, including punitive preemption, state government tendencies to enact laws that are ideologically opposed to the current administration, and conservative states using preemption to control progressive localities. Such trends demonstrate that the local policymaker role in the U.S. is changing. This change will impact health equity as localities may be discouraged or barred from enacting public health policies or may suffer financial penalties that deplete resources for public health programs.