Sanctuary cities in Texas are illegal. Chapter 752 of the Texas Government Code prohibits any city, county, or local law enforcement agency from adopting a policy that limits cooperation with federal immigration authorities. The ban has been in force since 2017, was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and carries daily civil fines that can climb to $25,500 per violation. Officials who defy it can be removed from office.
What Local Governments Cannot Do
The core rule lives in Section 752.053 of the Government Code. A local entity or campus police department may not adopt, enforce, or endorse any policy that “prohibits or materially limits” the enforcement of immigration laws.1State of Texas. Texas Government Code 752.053 – Policies and Actions Regarding Immigration Enforcement A written policy isn’t required for a violation. A pattern or practice that effectively blocks immigration enforcement is enough.
Specifically, a local government cannot stop its officers from doing any of the following:
- Asking about a person’s immigration status during a lawful detention or arrest.
- Sending, requesting, receiving, or exchanging immigration-status information with federal agencies or other local entities.
- Assisting federal immigration agents as reasonable or necessary.
- Allowing federal immigration officers into local jails to carry out enforcement.
The statute contains one narrow carve-out inside Section 752.053 itself: a local entity may prohibit its officers from assisting federal agents with enforcement actions at a place of worship.1State of Texas. Texas Government Code 752.053 – Policies and Actions Regarding Immigration Enforcement
The reach is broad. Municipal police, county sheriffs, district attorneys, campus police at public universities, magistrates, booking clerks, and corrections officers all fall inside the prohibition.
ICE Detainers in Local Jails
Separately, Texas law requires jails to honor immigration detainers issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. A detainer is a federal request asking a jail to hold someone briefly past a scheduled release so ICE agents can take custody. The requirement sits in the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure (Article 2A.060, formerly Article 2.251), and Section 752.053 makes it a sanctuary-city violation for any entity to intentionally obstruct compliance.1State of Texas. Texas Government Code 752.053 – Policies and Actions Regarding Immigration Enforcement
A jail generally must hold a person for up to 48 additional hours beyond the scheduled release time so ICE can assume custody. The Fifth Circuit upheld this mandate.2Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. City of El Cenizo v Texas, No 17-50762
Who Is Exempt
Section 752.052 places several categories of institutions entirely outside the law:
- Public school districts and open-enrollment charter schools, along with any peace officers employed by or contracted with them during that work.3State of Texas. Texas Government Code 752.052 – Applicability of Subchapter
- Hospitals, hospital districts, and federally qualified health centers when providing medical or health care services. Both public and private hospitals are covered.
- A local government’s public health department.
- Community mental health centers and local mental health authorities.
- Peace officers employed by or contracted with religious organizations during that work.
A nurse treating a patient or a teacher meeting with a family has no duty under Chapter 752 to inquire about immigration status. Educational records also remain protected by the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act and cannot be disclosed for immigration enforcement purposes.3State of Texas. Texas Government Code 752.052 – Applicability of Subchapter
Crime Victims and Witnesses
The statute’s definition of “lawful detention” excludes situations where a person is being detained solely because they are a crime victim or a person reporting a crime.4LegiScan. Texas Senate Bill 4 Since status inquiries are only authorized during a lawful detention or arrest, someone reporting domestic violence or witnessing a robbery should not face immigration questioning during that interaction. It is a narrow protection: the act of reporting a crime cannot itself trigger an immigration inquiry.
Penalties for Cities and Officials
Enforcement runs on two tracks. The jurisdiction faces money penalties. The individual officeholder faces personal ones.
Daily Civil Fines
A local entity found by a court to have intentionally violated Section 752.053 pays a civil penalty for each day the violation continues. A first violation runs $1,000 to $1,500 per day. Every violation after that jumps to $25,000 to $25,500 per day.5State of Texas. Texas Government Code 752.056 – Civil Penalty A single noncompliant month after a first finding can produce fines exceeding three quarters of a million dollars.
Removal From Office
Under Section 752.0565, an elected or appointed official who violates the sanctuary-city prohibition is treated as having forfeited the office. The Texas Attorney General must file a removal petition when presented with evidence establishing probable grounds. If the court finds the official guilty, the judgment removes them.6State of Texas. Texas Government Code 752.0565 – Removal From Office These removal proceedings receive the same docket priority as election contests, so they move to the front of the calendar.
The Court Challenge
Several Texas cities and advocacy groups sued in federal court almost immediately after the law took effect in 2017. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law almost in full. The prohibition on limiting immigration enforcement, the detainer mandate, and the penalty provisions all survived.2Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. City of El Cenizo v Texas, No 17-50762
The court did narrow one piece. It blocked enforcement of the “endorse” language in Section 752.053(a)(1) as applied to elected officials. An elected official who publicly voices support for sanctuary policies cannot be penalized for that speech alone. The rest of the prohibition stands. A city that moves beyond speech and actually adopts or enforces a limiting policy still violates the law.2Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. City of El Cenizo v Texas, No 17-50762
Not to Be Confused With the 2023 SB 4
The 2017 sanctuary-city law is often called SB 4. So is a separate 2023 bill. They are different laws.
The 2023 SB 4 created new state criminal offenses for entering Texas outside a lawful port of entry and for reentry after a prior removal order. A first illegal-entry offense carries up to $2,000 in fines and up to 180 days in jail; reentry after removal is punishable by up to $4,000 and up to one year in jail.7Congress.gov. Federal Preemption and Texas SB 4 It also authorized state judges to order removal of a person to the country they entered from, a provision that drew immediate federal preemption challenges.
Chapter 752, the law that bans sanctuary cities, does something different. It governs how local governments must cooperate with the federal immigration system Congress already built. If your question is whether a Texas city can shield residents from that system, the answer under Chapter 752 is no, and it has been no since 2017.