No, Pennsylvania is not a sanctuary state. The General Assembly has never passed a law declaring the Commonwealth a sanctuary jurisdiction, and it has never passed a law forcing local police to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement either. That silence is the whole story: with no statewide rule in either direction, each city and county sets its own policy, and the answer to whether local officials will cooperate with ICE changes as you cross county lines.
Why There Is No Single Answer
Some states have passed “anti-sanctuary” statutes requiring every local agency to honor ICE requests. Pennsylvania has not. Several bills to mandate cooperation have been introduced over the years, and none have cleared both chambers. The most recent attempt, House Bill 403, was referred to the Judiciary Committee in January 2025 and has seen no committee votes or hearings since.1Pennsylvania General Assembly. House Bill 403 Information
Because nothing at the state level compels an answer, no uniform penalty applies to a local government that refuses to cooperate with ICE, and no uniform obligation applies to one that wants to. Each jurisdiction weighs its own legal exposure, community priorities, and resources when it decides how to respond to federal immigration requests. The result is a patchwork of executive orders, ordinances, jail policies, and federal partnership agreements that vary widely from Philadelphia to a small township in the north-central counties.
Cities That Restrict ICE Cooperation
Philadelphia is the jurisdiction most often cited when people call Pennsylvania a sanctuary state. The city operates under executive orders from the Nutter administration (2009) and the Kenney administration (2016) that prohibit city employees from asking about immigration status and bar police from assisting ICE with detainer requests. Executive Order 5-16 directs that no person in city custody who would otherwise be released shall be held on an ICE civil immigration detainer alone.2City of Philadelphia. Executive Order No. 5-16
Mayor Cherelle Parker publicly moved away from the “sanctuary city” label in May 2025, announcing that Philadelphia would call itself a “welcoming city” instead. The rebranding changed the language, not the rules. City officials confirmed the 2009 and 2016 executive orders remain in place: police do not inquire about immigration status, the city does not collect or disclose immigration information, and detainer requests are not honored without a judicial warrant. Federal agents can still conduct their own operations within city limits; the city’s position is only that it will not use municipal employees, jail space, or tax dollars to carry out federal work.
Pittsburgh’s city council unanimously passed Bill 286 in 2025, prohibiting city police and other municipal employees from gathering or sharing information about residents’ immigration status and banning cooperation with federal agents trying to identify or apprehend targets. Pittsburgh’s police chief has said publicly that the department does not collaborate with ICE, does not check immigration status on calls for service, and is not briefed on ICE operations.
Beyond the two largest cities, a number of municipalities and counties have adopted their own limits. Allentown, Easton, Reading, Upper Darby, and Narberth have passed non-cooperation resolutions or ordinances. Allegheny, Bucks, and Montgomery counties have taken steps to limit their involvement in federal immigration enforcement. The specifics vary. Some are binding ordinances; others are advisory resolutions that signal intent without creating enforceable rules. The common argument from officials in these places is that pulling local police into federal civil enforcement erodes trust with immigrant communities, making residents less willing to report crimes or serve as witnesses.
County Jails and ICE Detainers
County jails are where the sanctuary question turns concrete. When someone is booked into a local jail, ICE may issue a detainer request asking the jail to hold that person for up to 48 additional hours past their scheduled release so ICE can pick them up. How a county handles that request varies.
Allegheny County Jail’s written policy states that the facility will not detain anyone and will not delay any authorized release because of a detainer request or administrative warrant from ICE. All immigration warrants must be signed by a judge or magistrate, and staff cannot share non-public information like an inmate’s home address, work address, or release date without a judicial warrant.3Allegheny County. Immigration Detainers and Warrants – Policy 220 Montgomery County adopted a similar stance in mid-2025, announcing it would no longer honor ICE detainer requests without a judicial warrant. Chester and Delaware counties have aligned their practices with the same approach. Other counties, especially in more rural areas, cooperate with ICE as a matter of course.
The Galarza Ruling That Drives Most County Policies
The reason so many county jails require a judicial warrant traces back to a 2014 Third Circuit decision, Galarza v. Szalczyk. The court ruled that ICE detainer requests are voluntary, not mandatory orders local agencies must obey. Ernesto Galarza, a U.S. citizen, had been arrested on a drug charge in Lehigh County, posted bail, and was held for three additional days on an ICE detainer before the detainer was withdrawn. The Third Circuit held that the federal government cannot commandeer local law enforcement to carry out federal immigration programs, and Lehigh County ultimately paid $95,000 to settle Galarza’s claim.4Justia Law. Galarza v. Szalczyk
That outcome sent a clear message to every jail in the Third Circuit’s jurisdiction, which covers Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware. Courts have broadly treated an extra 48 hours of detention on a baseless detainer as a new seizure under the Fourth Amendment, requiring its own legal justification. Many Pennsylvania counties adjusted their policies specifically to avoid that liability, which is the practical engine behind much of the state’s non-cooperation posture.
The State Police Are Not in the Immigration Business
Because the Pennsylvania State Police have jurisdiction everywhere in the Commonwealth, their policy matters no matter where you live. PSP Administrative Regulation 7-14 states that the department does not have jurisdiction over civil immigration matters and that no personnel shall inquire into anyone’s immigration status or take action to determine it, unless required by law or court order.5Pennsylvania State Police. AR 7-14 – Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law
The regulation prohibits troopers from stopping, searching, investigating, or attempting to detain anyone based on immigration status, citizenship, or nationality. It contains specific protections for crime victims and witnesses: they cannot be asked for identification to determine immigration status and cannot be detained for questioning about anyone’s immigration status. When identification is needed, troopers must accept a foreign passport, a driver’s license from another country, or a state-issued ID. The regulation also clarifies that an administrative immigration warrant, the kind ICE typically issues, is not a criminal warrant signed by a judge and cannot be used as the basis for the PSP to detain or arrest anyone.5Pennsylvania State Police. AR 7-14 – Enforcement of Civil Immigration Law
One important caveat: AR 7-14 is an internal PSP regulation, not a state statute. It could be revised by future department leadership without action by the legislature.
Where Local Agencies Have Signed On With ICE
While the largest cities and several suburban counties restrict cooperation, a significant number of Pennsylvania law enforcement agencies have moved in the opposite direction by signing 287(g) agreements. These federal partnerships delegate limited immigration enforcement authority to participating local officers, who receive ICE training and can help identify and process people for removal.
As of early 2026, roughly 60 law enforcement agencies in Pennsylvania had signed onto ICE’s 287(g) program, with at least one more pending. Participants include municipal police departments such as Bradford City and Reynoldsville Borough. About 20 of the enrolled agencies are constables, elected officials whose traditional role is serving court papers and providing courtroom security, and legal scholars have questioned whether constables have statutory authority to make immigration-related arrests. Several constables who sought to participate reported that their enrollment was suspended.
If you live in a jurisdiction that has signed a 287(g) agreement, a routine arrest or booking can lead to your information being shared with federal authorities as part of the local officer’s ordinary duties.
Federal Pressure and Pending State Legislation
The federal government has escalated pressure on jurisdictions it considers sanctuaries. 8 U.S.C. § 1373 prohibits any state or local government from restricting its employees from sending or receiving information about a 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 In April 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens,” directing the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to publish and update a list of designated sanctuary jurisdictions. The order instructs federal agencies to identify grants and contracts flowing to listed jurisdictions that could be suspended or terminated, and to pursue legal remedies against jurisdictions that remain in defiance after notice.7The White House. Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens
Philadelphia has argued its policies do not violate federal law. Mayor Parker’s administration sent a letter to the Department of Justice stating that the city is “firmly committed to supporting our immigrant communities” and has no laws that obstruct federal immigration enforcement. Earlier federal court rulings blocked the DOJ from conditioning certain grants on immigration cooperation, but those decisions predate the current administration’s approach, and the outcome under the new executive order framework is not settled.
At the state level, House Bill 403, introduced by Representatives Ryan Warner and Stephenie Scialabba, would prohibit any municipality or county from adopting policies that prevent enforcement of federal immigration law. It would require officers who have reasonable cause to believe an arrested person is not lawfully present to immediately report that individual to ICE, and it would create a private right of action allowing anyone injured by a released individual who had an active detainer to sue the municipality or county that let them go.8Pennsylvania General Assembly. House Co-Sponsorship Memo – Ending Sanctuary Cities in Pennsylvania That liability provision would flip the financial math local governments face today. Right now, counties face lawsuit risk from holding people on detainers under Galarza. Under HB 403, they would face lawsuit risk from not holding them. As of mid-2026, HB 403 remains in the House Judiciary Committee with no scheduled votes or hearings, and similar bills have stalled in prior sessions.1Pennsylvania General Assembly. House Bill 403 Information
What This Means Where You Live
If you live in Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, or one of the suburban counties that restrict ICE cooperation, local police will not ask about your immigration status during routine interactions, and the county jail will not hold you on a detainer without a judicial warrant. If you live in a jurisdiction that has signed a 287(g) agreement or otherwise cooperates with ICE, the same routine stop or arrest can result in information sharing with federal authorities. The State Police, wherever you are, will not stop or detain you based on immigration status under their current regulation.
One statewide rule cuts across all of this: Pennsylvania requires proof of lawful presence for a driver’s license, so undocumented residents cannot obtain one from PennDOT regardless of local policy.9Pennsylvania General Assembly. House Co-Sponsorship Memo 47721
None of Pennsylvania’s sanctuary-style protections are locked into state law. The city executive orders, the county jail policies, and the State Police regulation can all be revised by the officials who issued them. They are only as durable as the administrations that keep them in place.