PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
No official summary is available in the imported record yet.
People & committees
Rep. Issa, Darrell [R-CA-48] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: May 22, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1928 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1928 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1928 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1928 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-03-06 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Sanctuary City Accountability Act would let individual U.S. nationals sue state or local governments that meet its definition of a “sanctuary jurisdiction” if a noncitizen commits a crime against them or an immediate family member. They could seek compensation or a court order requiring or stopping action. The proposal also covers crimes after the noncitizen moves elsewhere, but protects local governments from liability for implementing state-imposed policies.
This Act may be cited as the Sanctuary City Accountability Act.
Any individual who is a national of the United States may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States against a sanctuary jurisdiction in which an alien was located if that alien commits a crime against that individual, or an immediate family member of that individual, in the sanctuary jurisdiction, or in any other jurisdiction to which the alien later relocates, for such injunctive relief or compensatory damages as may be appropriate.
A unit of local government may not be held liable under this section for enforcing or implementing a law, ordinance, regulation, resolution, policy, or other practice imposed by the State in which the unit of local government is located.
Section 2 would add a private right to sue to the Immigration and Nationality Act. An individual U.S. national could bring a civil lawsuit in an appropriate federal district court and request compensatory damages—money for harm suffered—or injunctive relief, a court order requiring or stopping action. The text permits these requests; it does not guarantee recovery.
Title I of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new section: 107. Private right of action
Any individual who is a national of the United States may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States
for such injunctive relief or compensatory damages as may be appropriate.
The proposed lawsuit would be against a qualifying jurisdiction where the noncitizen had been located. The crime against the person suing or their immediate family member could occur there or in another jurisdiction to which the noncitizen later moves.
against a sanctuary jurisdiction in which an alien was located if that alien commits a crime against that individual, or an immediate family member of that individual, in the sanctuary jurisdiction, or in any other jurisdiction to which the alien later relocates
A local government could not be held liable under this new section for enforcing or implementing a law, policy, or other listed practice imposed by its state. This protection is limited to local governments and state-imposed measures.
A unit of local government may not be held liable under this section for enforcing or implementing a law, ordinance, regulation, resolution, policy, or other practice imposed by the State in which the unit of local government is located.
The bill would define a “sanctuary jurisdiction” as a state or local government with laws, policies, or other practices that obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, commonly called ICE. This is the proposal’s legal definition, not a finding that any particular government meets it.
the term sanctuary jurisdiction means any State or unit of local government that has laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other practices that obstruct immigration enforcement and shield criminals from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
The definition expressly includes refusing to comply with ICE detainers, prohibiting agencies from complying, or imposing “unreasonable conditions” on compliance. The supplied text does not explain detainers or specify which conditions would be unreasonable.
(1) refusing to or prohibiting agencies from complying with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainers; (2) imposing unreasonable conditions on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer compliance;
Other listed practices include denying ICE access to interview incarcerated noncitizens and otherwise obstructing communication or information exchanges between jurisdiction personnel and federal immigration officers. The word “including” makes the listed practices examples rather than an exhaustive list.
including by—
(3) denying U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement access to interview incarcerated aliens; or (4) otherwise impeding communication or information exchanges between the jurisdiction’s personnel and Federal immigration officers.
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated May 22, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on the Judiciary on March 6, 2025. It does not establish what happened afterward.
Source snapshot updated 2026-05-22T08:08:37Z. 2025-03-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-03-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-03-06. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy rider was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish what appears in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; accompanying earmark materials are unavailable.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
Findings to examine
The supplied introduced text contains a specific exception to the proposed liability rule. Classifying it as a targeted benefit does not assess whether it is justified.
Local governments implementing measures imposed by their state would receive a specific liability protection. This exception narrows the bill’s main policy of allowing lawsuits against qualifying state and local governments.
A unit of local government may not be held liable under this section for enforcing or implementing a law, ordinance, regulation, resolution, policy, or other practice imposed by the State in which the unit of local government is located.
Any individual who is a national of the United States may bring a civil action in an appropriate district court of the United States against a sanctuary jurisdiction
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: May 22, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI