PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 465.
Congressional Research Service
Version 07 · Reported to House · Mar 12, 2026
Shut Down Sanctuary Policies Act of 2026
This bill addresses issues related to state and local government cooperation with federal immigration enforcement efforts, including by prohibiting limitations on cooperation, revising detainer authority, and restricting funding for certain jurisdictions.
Federal, state, and local government entities, including personnel, must be allowed to (1) comply with or enforce immigration laws or cooperate with immigration enforcement efforts, or (2) inquire about an individual's immigration status. Currently, such government entities must be allowed to share immigration-related information with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
DHS must issue a detainer for individuals arrested for any criminal or motor vehicle offense if DHS has probable cause that they are inadmissible or deportable.
Jurisdictions not in compliance with this bill, as determined by DHS, are ineligible for certain funding for law enforcement or immigration. This funding must be reallocated to jurisdictions that are in compliance.
The bill also creates a private right of action for victims of certain crimes to bring against a state or local government that, for example, released the individual who was convicted of the crime despite a detainer.
The bill provides federal immunity for officials and entities in compliance with the bill and removal to federal court for related prosecutions.
DHS may decline transfer of an individual in its custody if the requesting jurisdiction is not in compliance with this bill. DHS is prohibited from transferring an individual with a final order of removal.
People & committees
Rep. McClintock, Tom [R-CA-5] · R–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 465.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-541.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 119-541.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 22 - 11.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Jun 11, 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.7640 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.7640 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.7640 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.7640 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.