Michigan House Republicans recently approved a new rule aimed at discouraging sanctuary cities. There's no clear legal definition for what constitutes a sanctuary city. But generally it’s used when a city has made some statement or enacted rules that limit cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement—or ICE.
For some cities, the idea behind these types of policies is to help local police get cooperation from witnesses and victims of crime, regardless of immigration status. They can also shield local law enforcement agencies from liabilities associated with enforcing federal immigration laws.
Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp) sponsored House Resolution 19. At a press briefing last month, Hall argued the new rule ensures taxpayer dollars are not going to communities that don’t cooperate with federal immigration officials.
“A sanctuary jurisdiction is a jurisdiction that does not comply with ICE, it does not help enforce federal immigration law, it interferes in some way, or it doesn't cooperate with ICE,” he said.
It’s not clear yet what effect the resolution will have on this year's budgeting process. A request for comment from Hall on the resolution went unanswered.
There are a number of Michigan cities that restrict how local police cooperate with ICE.
For example, East Lansing police and city officials can’t collaborate with ICE solely to enforce immigration law. Detroit and Grand Rapids prohibit police from asking about a person’s immigration status unless it's directly related to the prosecution or investigation of a violent crime. And in Wayne County, the county jail requires ICE agents to get a warrant from a judge or magistrate if they want the county to hold an inmate for them.
According to Hall, those are exactly the kind of policies that could keep municipalities from getting future discretionary funding from the state.
“I would say any jurisdiction that has a policy that they will not hold illegal aliens for a reasonable time for ICE to come pick them up under a detainer, and they require a court to do that is a sanctuary jurisdiction and will not receive pork projects from us,” Hall said at last month's press briefing.
Kalamazoo Township Supervisor David Combs called the resolution an overreach.
“I think it's actually an overstep of the state government to attempt to broker power over municipalities on behalf of the federal government,” he said. “That’s not the role of the state government.”
In January, Combs proposed an ordinance aimed at limiting the use of township resources for immigration enforcement unless explicitly authorized by police or township officials. The policy would also prohibit law enforcement from inquiring about an individual’s immigration status. Since then, the proposed ordinance has been tabled by township officials as they wait for community input and legal guidance.
An important note here: Most of the money that local governments and universities receive from the state would not be impacted by this legislation.
“Municipalities get money from the state through what’s called revenue sharing, that comes once a year, and is a constitutional requirement,” explained Matthew Schneider, a former U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan and a state constitutional law expert.
What is at stake is discretionary funds—money that lawmakers decide where to spend each year.
For example, in the 2024-25 fiscal year budget, the Michigan Legislature approved a $1 million dollar grant to Kalamazoo Township to improve their police and fire infrastructure. Recycle Ann Arbor received $5 million dollars to expand recycling and composting in the city.
Under HR 19, one-time funding requests like these could be at risk for local governments or universities that limit cooperation with ICE.
“There could be situations where, if they can’t get money appropriated from the Legislature," Schneider said, "They just won’t have those funds to spend and they’ll have to look elsewhere."
Some Democrats are worried HR 19 could cause delays in the budget approval process this year. The upcoming fiscal year’s budget needs to be approved before October 1.
“The best form of governing with the budget is to decide what our priorities are and fund program areas," said House Representative Jason Morgan (D-Ann Arbor). "And then have impartial departments or processes to determine how everybody receives those funds in an equitable and fair way throughout the state."
Morgan said that so-called "sanctuary city" policies keep local law enforcement focused on public safety. And he noted that there are other ways municipalities could receive state funding for special projects—regardless of their policies surrounding cooperation with ICE.
Take, for example, recovery funding for extreme weather events in the 2024-25 fiscal year budget. Rather than issuing one-time grants directly to local governments, the Legislature allocated $50 million to the Michigan State Police, who then passed out those funds to communities based on need.
Ultimately, Morgan said he sees the House resolution as an attempt to sow confusion and bully local law enforcement agencies.
“The courts have consistently held that federal immigration enforcement is handled by the federal government and no community is allowed to interfere with the federal government’s activities and, in my opinion, none of them are,” Morgan explained.
It’s still early in the state budgeting process, and exactly how the resolution impacts so-called “sanctuary cities” is yet to be seen. Kalamazoo Township Supervisor David Combs is firmly opposed to changing the township's policies.
“However, I am one of seven members on the board of trustees, and so we will need to have board discussions at our next several meetings to determine specifically what we do as a township and how we move forward,” he added.
It’s likely that other local governments and universities will be having those same discussions in the months to come.
