East Lansing is the only city in Michigan that has formally declared itself a sanctuary city, and as of the Department of Justice’s October 31, 2025 update, it is the only Michigan jurisdiction on the federal government’s official sanctuary list.1 Several other Michigan cities and counties limit their cooperation with federal immigration enforcement in meaningful ways, but they have avoided the sanctuary label, often deliberately. When people ask about sanctuary cities in Michigan, the honest answer is that the formal count is one, and the practical count is larger.
East Lansing, the Only Formal Sanctuary City
East Lansing’s city council voted 3-1 on January 10, 2023, to adopt a resolution declaring the city a sanctuary city. No other Michigan municipality has taken that step using that word. The DOJ lists East Lansing under Executive Order 14287, which directs the Attorney General to publish and update a list of jurisdictions the administration says “obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration laws.”
Other Michigan Cities With Similar Policies
Several Michigan cities restrict local involvement with federal immigration enforcement without calling themselves sanctuaries. The distinction is legal and political, not always practical.
Ann Arbor
Ann Arbor adopted an ordinance in April 2017 limiting when city employees may ask about immigration status, then passed a resolution requiring a judicial warrant before detaining anyone at ICE’s request. City officials have rejected the sanctuary label anyway. Ann Arbor’s city administrator has stated publicly that “our city has never declared or identified itself as a sanctuary city” and that the city “would never take an action to obstruct the actions of any other law enforcement agency from carrying out their duties.” Ann Arbor appeared on an earlier federal list but is not on the current DOJ list under Executive Order 14287.
Detroit
Detroit passed an anti-profiling ordinance in 2007 that prohibits police officers from asking about immigration status when someone is seeking police services, reporting a crime, or serving as a witness. It also bars officers from asking about immigration status to check compliance with federal immigration law. The city council later reaffirmed the policy through a resolution supporting sanctuary principles, but Detroit has never formally declared itself a sanctuary city.
Lansing
Lansing declared itself a sanctuary city in 2017 and rescinded the resolution about a week later. The city operates instead under a 2017 mayoral executive order that limits police involvement with ICE. Under that order, Lansing police generally do not look into a person’s immigration status unless required to act by a judicial warrant. Lansing also identifies as a “welcoming city,” a related but distinct designation.
Michigan Counties That Limit ICE Cooperation
Several Michigan counties have jail policies or resolutions restricting cooperation with federal immigration authorities. In May 2025, the Trump administration labeled six Michigan counties as sanctuary jurisdictions: Oakland, Wayne, Kalamazoo, Wexford, Kent, and Washtenaw. Ingham, Luce, Leelanau, and Muskegon have reportedly adopted limited-cooperation jail policies as well. Some of the labeled jurisdictions have disputed the designation, and the current DOJ list no longer includes any Michigan counties.
The common thread among these counties is a refusal to hold people in jail based only on an ICE detainer. A detainer is a request asking a jail to keep someone in custody for up to 48 additional hours past their normal release so that immigration agents can pick them up. Detainers are signed by ICE officials, not judges, and multiple federal courts have held that compliance is voluntary.
Washtenaw County illustrates the approach. The Sheriff’s Office will not detain anyone based solely on an ICE detainer or an administrative warrant of removal. It requires a federal court order or a warrant signed by a federal judge. As the sheriff’s office has put it, “we are not going to detain somebody based solely on the justification of the immigration detainer.” Other counties draw the same line between administrative ICE paperwork and a judicial warrant.
What These Policies Change for Residents
The practical effect turns up in routine police interactions. In cities and counties with these policies, an officer pulling you over for a broken taillight will not ask where you were born or whether you have immigration documents. If you walk into a police station to report a theft, the officer taking the report will not check your status. The stated purpose is to keep people who fear deportation willing to report crimes and cooperate with investigations.
What these policies do not do is prevent federal immigration enforcement. ICE agents can still operate in Michigan, execute judicial warrants, and conduct their own investigations. Local sanctuary or limited-cooperation policies restrict what local officers and jails will do to assist that work; they do not shield anyone from federal action.
Michigan State Police Rules Apply Statewide
The Michigan State Police follows a department-wide policy that applies regardless of where you are in the state. Troopers may not stop or detain anyone, or prolong a traffic stop, solely to determine citizenship status, unless identification is necessary because the person committed a crime or civil infraction. Officers may not require proof of immigration status or ask about it unless the information is necessary as part of a criminal investigation.
The policy also bars MSP officers from stopping, searching, arresting, or detaining anyone based on an ICE administrative warrant or immigration detainer, including the standard federal forms I-200, I-205, I-274A, and I-203. That means the state’s own police force follows many of the same principles some cities have adopted locally, even in parts of Michigan where no local sanctuary or welcoming policy exists.
Sanctuary Cities Versus Welcoming Cities
At least 22 Michigan cities and counties, including Detroit, Grand Rapids, Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, and Lansing, have passed “welcoming” resolutions. A welcoming city focuses on integrating immigrants through language access, community programs, and economic opportunities. A sanctuary city specifically limits local law enforcement’s role in federal immigration enforcement. A city can be welcoming without being a sanctuary, and most Michigan communities that support immigrant populations have chosen the welcoming label to avoid the legal and political complications of the sanctuary designation. Lansing is the clearest example: it rescinded its brief sanctuary declaration in 2017 but continues to operate as a welcoming city while its executive order limits police involvement with ICE.
Federal Funding Consequences
The federal government has escalated pressure on sanctuary jurisdictions through Executive Order 14287, signed April 28, 2025. The order directs the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security to publish and regularly update a list of sanctuary jurisdictions. Once a jurisdiction is listed, every federal agency is directed to identify grants and contracts that could be suspended or terminated. Jurisdictions that stay on the list after receiving notice face possible legal action from the DOJ and DHS.
The DOJ’s May 2025 designation included six Michigan counties and two cities. The October 31, 2025 update narrowed Michigan’s exposure to East Lansing alone. Previous federal efforts to withhold funding from sanctuary jurisdictions have faced legal challenges, with courts issuing injunctions over concerns about executive authority and statutory limits on attaching new conditions to existing grants. The financial risk is real but uncertain, and whether the administration can follow through on fund suspension depends on ongoing litigation and the specific grant programs involved.
State Legislative Pressure
In February 2025, the Michigan House of Representatives adopted House Resolution 19 by a 56-50 vote. The resolution changed the House’s internal rules so that appropriations bills cannot be brought for a vote if they include earmarked funding for a municipality that “actively maintains any rule, policy, or ordinance that would subvert immigration enforcement in any way.” Earmarked funding under the resolution means specific appropriations for a contract, grant, loan, or other economic assistance directed to a particular local government or project, distinct from formula-driven or competitive funding. The House has applied the same approach to university funding, requiring local governments and universities seeking earmarks to certify cooperation with federal immigration authorities. Because HR 19 is a procedural rule change rather than a bill, it did not require the governor’s signature, and it does not touch formula-based state funding. The resolution defines “municipality” as a county, city, village, or township.
Moving the other direction, Senate Bills 508 through 510, introduced in August 2025, would restrict where immigration enforcement can occur in Michigan. SB 508 would designate schools, places of worship, hospitals, courthouses, funeral sites, and organizations serving children, pregnant women, or crime victims as “sensitive locations” where immigration enforcement is prohibited absent a court order or imminent public safety threat. Companion bills would prohibit government entities from sharing personal information for immigration enforcement without a judicial warrant. As of early 2026, all three bills remain in the Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety and have not received a floor vote.