On August 5, 2025, the Department of Justice published the official list of "sanctuary" jurisdictions as required by Executive Order 14287, identifying 13 states, 18 cities, and 4 counties that the administration deemed non-compliant with federal immigration enforcement cooperation requests. The list formalized the administration's confrontation with jurisdictions that limited local law enforcement cooperation with ICE.
Named Jurisdictions
The 13 states included California, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington among others — representing approximately 40% of the U.S. population. Major cities on the list included New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Philadelphia, and Denver.
Federal Pressure Campaign
Publication of the list was accompanied by threats of federal funding cuts, deployment of additional ICE resources to listed jurisdictions, and public shaming rhetoric from administration officials framing sanctuary policies as protecting criminals. The administration invoked executive orders including "Protecting the American People Against Invasion" and "Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Open Borders" as legal authority.
Constitutional Limits
Legal scholars noted significant constitutional barriers to the administration's pressure campaign. Under the anti-commandeering doctrine established in Printz v. United States (1997), the federal government cannot compel state and local officials to enforce federal law. The Supreme Court's NFIB v. Sebelius (2012) decision further limited the ability to use funding threats as coercion, requiring that conditions on federal funds be related to the program's purpose.
Capture Significance
The sanctuary list represented an escalation from legal threats to formal identification of political opponents at the state and local level. By naming jurisdictions and threatening their funding, the administration sought to coerce compliance through fiscal pressure where legal authority was insufficient — a tactic that itself faced legal challenge as unconstitutional coercion under existing precedent.