State Legislatures Bolster Federal Immigration Crackdown by Targeting Local Protections for Immigrants

As the federal government continues to violently and unlawfully enforce its anti-immigrant agenda, state legislatures across the country are following suit by introducing abusive preemption bills that aim to prevent localities from protecting immigrants – or punish ones that attempt to do so. 

Just weeks into 2026 state legislative sessions – before all states have even convened their sessions – LSSC is tracking 56 immigration-specific abusive preemption bills across 21 states. Twenty of these 56 bills are newly introduced in 2026; the other 36 bills carried over from 2025. This trend isn’t surprising; in 2025, LSSC tracked a 900 percent increase in anti-immigration preemption bills filed, compared to 2024. 

The anti-immigrant preemption bills that LSSC is tracking this session largely fall into three categories: 

  • Bills that require local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities (often via ICE’s controversial 287(g) Program) and/or prohibit sanctuary policies in the states that do not already have laws on this topic.

  • Bills that impose punitive provisions on local governments that violate their state’s ban on sanctuary policies.

  • Bills that impose burdensome reporting requirements on localities, such as documenting costs spent on undocumented immigrants.

The punitive approach taken by several states towards localities directly mirrors the federal government’s recent attempts to withhold critical funding in Democratic states, particularly those that disagree with federal actions on immigration enforcement. For a more in-depth overview of the connection between federal authoritarianism and abusive state preemption, please see LSSC’s recently released white paper on the topic.

Below are examples of moving bills that fall into each of the three categories outlined above. 

Bills that require local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and/or prohibit sanctuary policies in the states that do not already have laws on this topic:

  • Existing Iowa law requires law enforcement to comply with detainer requests for persons in custody. Iowa HF 2041 would expand the existing law to a broad, general mandate requiring law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement whenever requested. This bill has two companion bills in the Senate: SF 2097 and SSB 3071.

  • In Kentucky, SB 86 would require local law enforcement to partner with ICE to perform immigration functions under the 287(g) Program.

  • In South Carolina, H 3030 would require local law enforcement to participate in ICE’s 287(g) Program and to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney’s Office on initiating RICO proceedings to seize all assets involved in operations bringing undocumented individuals into South Carolina. 

Bills that impose punitive provisions on local governments that violate their state’s ban on sanctuary cities:

  • In Kentucky, HB 361 would eliminate local discretion on immigration enforcement and create financial penalties for non-compliance. Specifically, the bill would: 

    • Require local law enforcement to use available resources to support federal immigration efforts;

    • Suspend road aid funds to local governments that willfully violate the Act; and

    • Create a presumption that any officer who intentionally violates the Act is guilty of wrongdoing. 

  • In Mississippi, HB 538 would transform the state’s sanctuary policy ban from a passive prohibition into an active mandate by requiring cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Specifically, the bill would:

    • Expand Mississippi’s sanctuary policy ban by prohibiting any policy that “limits, restricts, bans, or interferes with the enforcement of federal immigration laws by any person”;

    • Expand the law beyond adopted policies to include any “practices” or “procedures” which could apply to actions such as a government employee distributing a flyer; 

    • Require local law enforcement to cooperate “to the fullest extent possible” with federal immigration enforcement; 

    • Allow government employees to be sued for violating the law; and

    • Authorize the Attorney General to investigate alleged violations and prosecute violators “to the fullest extent permitted by law.”

  • In West Virginia, HB 4596 would add financial penalties to the state’s existing prohibition on sanctuary policies. Local governments or law enforcement agencies that violate the sanctuary ban would lose state funding if they do not come into compliance within 90 days of receiving a notice from the state. 

Bills that impose burdensome reporting requirements on localities:

  • West Virginia HB 4059 would require local governments and hospitals to file quarterly reports on the costs spent on housing, sheltering, feeding, transporting and educating undocumented immigrants. Failure to comply with these reporting requirements would constitute a violation of the state’s sanctuary city law. 

LSSC monitors abusive preemption bills in all 50 states and will continue to release trend reports for the duration of the 2026 legislative session. If you have questions about any of the bills in this update, or about any of the broader preemption trends our team is tracking, please contact media@supportdemocracy.org. We’d be happy to get you connected with the right expert.

Adam Polaski