House Judiciary Committee advances bill to deny certain federal grants to sanctuary jurisdictions after heated debate

The House Committee on the Judiciary voted to report HR 7640, the Shutdown Sanctuary Policies Act, to the full House after adopting an amendment in the nature of a substitute and approving the measure by roll call.

The bill’s sponsor, a Representative from California, told the committee the measure would preempt local “sanctuary” policies that bar cooperation with federal immigration authorities and would shift federal law‑enforcement grant funds to jurisdictions that agree to cooperate. In an opening statement the sponsor argued the legislation would protect officers who cooperate, create a private right of action for victims of crimes by removable aliens and, as the sponsor put it, "this bill is for you" to sheriffs and law‑enforcement victims’ families who testified to the panel.

Committee Democrats and some Republicans pushed back, saying the bill reaches far beyond detainer policy and raises serious constitutional concerns. The committee’s ranking member said the measure "is a full‑blown assault on the 10th Amendment," arguing it would effectively conscript state and local officials and that conditioning grants could be coercive under existing Supreme Court precedent. Several Democratic members said the bill would cut off funds for programs that support victims of human trafficking, domestic violence and sexual assault.

Members debated a range of legal and operational questions. Supporters said federal immigration functions are national in scope and that some sanctuary policies have resulted in federal detainers not being honored. Opponents cited cases and research they said show that cooperation with federal immigration enforcement can undermine trust between immigrant communities and local police, reducing victims’ willingness to report crimes.

A series of amendments was considered. The committee rejected an amendment offered by the gentlelady from Georgia that would have removed the bill’s funding‑condition language; the clerk announced the tally as nine yeas and 17 nays. Lawmakers also debated whether state and local officers participating in federal enforcement should be required to follow judicial‑warrant standards when entering private homes; proponents of that protection argued it would guard Fourth Amendment rights, while opponents said administrative warrants are standard after final removal orders and that adding a judicial warrant requirement could hinder enforcement.

Another contentious topic was whether federal or local agents should conceal their identities during operations. Some members urged prohibiting masks so officers remain identifiable and accountable; others said officers and agents must be allowed to protect themselves from doxxing and threats. Members also sparred over specific case examples offered by colleagues on both sides to illustrate harms or risks linked to the status quo.

At the conclusion of the markup the committee adopted the amendment in the nature of a substitute and voted to report the bill favorably. The clerk announced the final recorded vote to report HR 7640 as 22 yeas and 11 nays. The committee gave staff authority to make technical and conforming changes before the bill goes to the House floor.

What’s next: With the committee having ordered the bill reported, it proceeds to the House where additional floor consideration and amendments are possible. The sponsor and supporters signaled they want the full House to consider the measure; opponents said they will press constitutional and funding‑impact arguments during floor debate.

(At the markup: the chair called the committee to order; the clerk reported HR 7640 for markup; the committee heard opening statements, debated multiple amendments and held recorded roll‑call votes. The committee adopted an amendment in the nature of a substitute and voted to report the bill to the House.)