Immigration Tracker
State Immigration Cooperation Laws by State (2026)
Does a state help or hold back from federal immigration enforcement? This guide sorts all 50 states and the District of Columbia by their statewide law: those that limit cooperation with ICE (often called “sanctuary” laws), those that require it, and those with no statewide law either way. Labels are strictly factual, and states where authoritative sources genuinely disagree are marked.
The three categories
Classification is by current statewide law or policy — not individual cities, which set their own policies. This is a fast-moving legal area; see the methodology below for how disputed states are handled.
- Limits Cooperation with ICE. Statewide law or policy restricts state/local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement (often called “sanctuary” laws).
- Requires Cooperation with ICE. Statewide law mandates cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and/or bans local “sanctuary” policies.
- No Statewide Law. No statewide law in either direction; local policies may still vary from city to city and county to county.
The 50-state table
A † marks a state whose classification is disputed — authoritative sources disagree, usually because the posture rests on a court ruling, an attorney-general directive, or an executive order rather than a comprehensive statute. 5 states are flagged.
| State | Statewide posture | What the law does |
|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law bans sanctuary policies and requires local governments to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and detainers. |
| Alaska | No Statewide Law | No statewide law directs or restricts local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement; local policies vary. |
| Arizona | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law bars sanctuary policies and directs local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, building on SB 1070 provisions. |
| Arkansas | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law prohibits sanctuary policies and conditions funding on local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. |
| California | Limits Cooperation with ICE | The California Values Act broadly restricts state and local law enforcement from using resources for federal immigration enforcement. |
| Colorado | Limits Cooperation with ICE | State law limits local cooperation with ICE, barring detainer-based holds and restricting sharing of personal information. |
| Connecticut | Limits Cooperation with ICE | The state's TRUST Act limits when local law enforcement may honor ICE detainers or share information with federal agents. |
| Delaware | Limits Cooperation with ICE | 2025 laws bar local agencies from signing ICE 287(g) agreements and limit assistance with civil immigration enforcement. |
| District of Columbia | Limits Cooperation with ICE | District law limits local cooperation with ICE, including restrictions on honoring detainers and sharing information. |
| Florida | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law bans sanctuary policies and requires local law enforcement to cooperate with ICE, including honoring detainers. |
| Georgia | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law prohibits sanctuary policies and requires local compliance with federal immigration enforcement and detainers. |
| Hawaii | Limits Cooperation with ICE | State policy limits local law enforcement from honoring ICE detainer requests absent a judicial warrant. |
| Idaho | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law directs local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and restricts sanctuary policies. |
| Illinois | Limits Cooperation with ICE | State law (TRUST Act and Way Forward Act) broadly prohibits local police cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement. |
| Indiana | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law prohibits local governments from adopting policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration authorities. |
| Iowa | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law bans sanctuary policies and requires local compliance with federal immigration detainers. |
| Kansas | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law restricts local governments from adopting sanctuary policies limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. |
| Kentucky | No Statewide Law | No statewide law in either direction; cooperation policies vary by locality. |
| Louisiana | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law bans sanctuary policies and requires local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and detainers. |
| Maine | Limits Cooperation with ICE | A 2025 law (LD 1971) bars local officials from honoring ICE detainers, joining 287(g), or assisting civil immigration enforcement. |
| Maryland | Limits Cooperation with ICE | 2025 legislation limits local cooperation with ICE, including detainer restrictions and enforcement limits at sensitive locations. |
| Massachusetts | Limits Cooperation with ICE | A state high-court ruling and 2025 law limit local honoring of ICE detainers and cooperation with civil enforcement. |
| Michigan | No Statewide Law | No statewide law directs or restricts local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement; local policies vary. |
| Minnesota | Limits Cooperation with ICE | State policy limits local law enforcement cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement and honoring of ICE detainers. |
| Mississippi | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law prohibits sanctuary policies and requires local compliance with federal immigration enforcement. |
| Missouri | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law bans sanctuary policies and requires local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. |
| Montana | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law prohibits local sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. |
| Nebraska | No Statewide Law | No statewide law in either direction; cooperation policies vary by locality. |
| Nevada† | Limits Cooperation with ICE | State court rulings bar holding people on ICE detainers without a warrant; sources differ on statewide sanctuary status. |
| New Hampshire | Requires Cooperation with ICE | 2025 laws effective January 2026 ban sanctuary policies and require compliance with ICE detainers when safe to do so. |
| New Jersey | Limits Cooperation with ICE | The Attorney General's Immigrant Trust Directive restricts most local law enforcement cooperation with federal civil immigration authorities. |
| New Mexico | Limits Cooperation with ICE | The 2025-2026 Immigrant Safety Act bars civil immigration detention agreements and local 287(g) participation statewide. |
| New York | Limits Cooperation with ICE | State policies limit local cooperation with ICE, including restrictions on honoring detainers and sharing information. |
| North Carolina | Requires Cooperation with ICE | A 2026 law ends local sanctuary policies and mandates cooperation with ICE, including honoring detainers. |
| North Dakota | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law restricts local sanctuary policies and directs cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. |
| Ohio | No Statewide Law | No statewide law in either direction; cooperation policies vary by locality. |
| Oklahoma | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law bans sanctuary policies and requires local cooperation with federal immigration authorities. |
| Oregon | Limits Cooperation with ICE | Longstanding state law prohibits using public resources to enforce federal immigration law and restricts information sharing. |
| Pennsylvania† | Limits Cooperation with ICE | Statewide limits rest largely on court rulings against detainer holds rather than a comprehensive statute; sources differ. |
| Rhode Island† | Limits Cooperation with ICE | Executive/AG policy limits honoring ICE detainers without a warrant; sources disagree on whether the state qualifies as sanctuary. |
| South Carolina | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law prohibits sanctuary policies and requires local compliance with federal immigration enforcement. |
| South Dakota | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law bars local sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. |
| Tennessee | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law bans sanctuary policies and requires local compliance with federal immigration detainers. |
| Texas | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law (SB 4) bans sanctuary policies and requires local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. |
| Utah† | No Statewide Law | No comprehensive statewide sanctuary or mandate law; sources disagree, and localities have voluntarily signed ICE 287(g) agreements. |
| Vermont | Limits Cooperation with ICE | State law limits local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and restricts information sharing. |
| Virginia† | Limits Cooperation with ICE | Posture shifted by executive order; the current administration ended state ICE agreements and the legislature advanced 287(g) limits. |
| Washington | Limits Cooperation with ICE | The Keep Washington Working Act broadly limits state and local participation in federal civil immigration enforcement. |
| West Virginia | Requires Cooperation with ICE | State law prohibits sanctuary policies and directs local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. |
| Wisconsin | No Statewide Law | No statewide law directs or restricts local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement; local policies vary. |
| Wyoming | No Statewide Law | No statewide law in either direction; cooperation policies vary by locality. |
No states in this category.
Cite this page
Free to reference with attribution. Copy the citation below:
"Sanctuary & ICE Cooperation Laws by State (2026)," The Liberty Tribune, https://thelibertytribune.com/trackers/immigration-cooperation-laws-by-state/ Methodology & sources
This is a contested, fast-moving topic, so the table is triangulated across sources that lean in different directions rather than any single one: Ballotpedia's neutral state-by-state breakdown, the National Conference of State Legislatures and the Migration Policy Institute (neutral), the Center for Immigration Studies (which favors stricter enforcement), and the Immigrant Legal Resource Center and ACLU (which favor immigrants' rights), plus the Congressional Research Service.
Sources diverge mainly by definition: CIS recognizes only a handful of states as strong statewide “sanctuary” jurisdictions, while Ballotpedia counts more by also including attorney-general directives, executive orders, and court detainer rulings. Where a state's posture rests on such action rather than a comprehensive statute — or where sources otherwise split — we mark it † disputed rather than force a clean label.
Compiled by The Liberty Tribune from public legal references (Ballotpedia, NCSL, MPI, CIS, ILRC/ACLU, CRS), as of July 2026. Last verified July 30, 2026. Several classifications reflect 2025-2026 changes still taking effect. This is a reference guide, not legal advice — confirm current statute with official state sources.
Related: All trackers → · Immigration coverage →