Ohio is not a sanctuary state. State law pushes in the opposite direction: Ohio Revised Code Section 9.63 requires state and local employees to cooperate with federal immigration investigations and bars cities from adopting policies that would materially block that cooperation.1Ohio Legislative Service Commission. Ohio Revised Code Section 9.63 A handful of Ohio cities have adopted sanctuary-style guidelines that limit how local police spend their own time and resources, but those local directives operate within a state framework that favors cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
What Ohio State Law Requires
RC 9.63 is the governing statute, and it does two things. It prohibits any state or local employee from unreasonably refusing a lawful federal request for help with an immigration or terrorism investigation. And it bars any Ohio city from passing an ordinance, policy, or directive that would materially hinder local employees from cooperating with federal immigration services.1Ohio Legislative Service Commission. Ohio Revised Code Section 9.63
The statute carries a financial penalty. A city that violates it becomes ineligible for state homeland security funding, and the state’s Director of Public Safety can certify a city as non-compliant, cutting off that money until the offending policy is repealed.
There is a free-speech carve-out. A city can pass a resolution criticizing federal immigration policy, and an individual employee can voice disagreement, without triggering a violation. Expressing opposition is not the same as materially blocking cooperation, and that distinction is why several Ohio cities have been able to adopt welcoming postures without crossing the line the statute draws.
Ohio Cities with Sanctuary-Style Policies
Columbus is the clearest example. A 2017 executive order directs city departments not to use city funds, equipment, or personnel to detect or apprehend people based solely on suspected immigration status, unless a court order exists. City employees are also told not to ask about or investigate a person’s immigration status absent a warrant, a reported criminal violation, or an arrest.2City of Columbus. Executive Order 2017-01 – Reinforcing and Expanding City Immigration Policy for All Columbus Residents The stated goal is to make residents comfortable enough to report crimes without fear of deportation.
Cincinnati adopted a similar posture in 2017, limiting how city resources are used for federal civil immigration enforcement. The practical effect in both cities is that a routine traffic stop or an interaction with city services will not turn into an immigration inquiry. Neither city claims to override federal law; both direct how local employees prioritize their workload.
Dayton took a different route. Its “Welcome Dayton” initiative launched in 2011 to support immigrant integration through economic development, education access, and community services. In 2017, Dayton became the first U.S. city certified as “welcoming” by the national nonprofit Welcoming America.3City of Dayton. Welcome Dayton That designation emphasizes community building rather than any limit on immigration enforcement.
None of these cities currently appear on the federal Department of Justice’s sanctuary jurisdiction list published under Executive Order 14287.4U.S. Department of Justice. U.S. Sanctuary Jurisdiction List Following Executive Order 14287 – Protecting American Communities From Criminal Aliens Ohio’s local policies tend to be narrower than what exists in states with comprehensive “Trust Acts” that bar local law enforcement from honoring immigration holds, inquiring about status, or giving federal agents access to local facilities and databases.5Illinois General Assembly. 5 ILCS 805 – Illinois TRUST Act
Federal Information Sharing Still Applies
Whatever an Ohio city decides locally, federal law sets a floor. Under 8 U.S.C. ยง 1373, no government entity or official can be prohibited from sending or receiving information about any person’s citizenship or immigration status to and from federal immigration authorities.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 USC 1373 – Communication Between Government Agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service Section 1644 reinforces this by stating that no state or local government can be restricted from exchanging immigration-status information with federal authorities.7Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 8 USC 1644
So Columbus can tell its officers not to proactively investigate immigration status, but it cannot stop those officers from sharing immigration-related information with ICE if asked. Local sanctuary-style policies operate in the gap between proactive enforcement and reactive information sharing.
A federal program called Secure Communities automates part of the flow. When any law enforcement agency in Ohio books someone and submits their fingerprints to the FBI, those prints are automatically forwarded to the Department of Homeland Security to check against immigration databases.8U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Secure Communities This happens regardless of the local agency’s preferences, and the federal government then decides independently what action to take.
Ohio Counties That Partner Directly with ICE
The other end of the spectrum is just as real. When a database check flags someone as potentially removable, ICE may issue an immigration detainer asking the local jail to hold the person for up to 48 hours past their scheduled release so federal agents can take custody.9U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Immigration Detainers Courts have generally treated these detainers as requests rather than commands. Most Ohio county jails honor them.
Some counties go further. Butler County, Seneca County, and Portage County had signed formal 287(g) memorandums of agreement with ICE as of mid-2025.10U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Delegation of Immigration Authority Section 287(g) Under the jail enforcement model, trained local officers can screen inmates for immigration violations and begin removal proceedings while the person is still in custody, a function that would otherwise require a federal agent on site.
The contrast within one state is sharp. In Columbus, police are told not to ask about immigration status during a traffic stop. In Butler County, corrections officers are formally deputized to begin deportation proceedings inside the jail. Both arrangements are legal under current Ohio and federal law.
What This Means on the Ground
If you are trying to understand your exposure to immigration enforcement in Ohio, the answer depends on where you are and what triggers the contact. A traffic stop in Columbus or Cincinnati is unlikely to turn into an immigration inquiry by local officers. A booking in any Ohio jail will result in fingerprints going to federal immigration databases automatically. A booking in a 287(g) county may lead to removal proceedings initiated by local corrections staff before you ever leave the facility.
The short version: Ohio law requires cooperation with federal immigration authorities, a few cities limit how aggressively their own officers participate, and the federal government maintains data-sharing channels that no local policy can shut off.