Democratic lawmakers proposed nearly 250 bills in state capitols this year seeking to limit federal immigration efforts as they sought to push back against what they view as federal government overreach. 

In a new report tallying 2026 action, State Futures, a nonprofit coordinating hundreds of Democratic lawmakers across the states, tracked 242 pieces of such legislation introduced across 32 states. About a fifth of them passed. Most of the measures address the ramped up immigration enforcement efforts that have defined President Donald Trump’s second term. 

Some of those bills have faced Republican opposition and White House challenges. But Democratic governors have also raised concerns and even vetoed some measures, saying they supported their aims, but worried they could have unintended consequences and invite litigation.

The bills sought to ban the masking of immigration officers, protect against immigration enforcement in sensitive places such as schools and hospitals and enact new zoning regulations on private detention facilities, among other issues.

State Futures said 53 bills passed in 17 states this year, though several were vetoed or still await action from governors. Many of those bills face legal review as courts weigh the limits of state authority to regulate federal action.

But lawmakers say those numbers underscore the left’s growing embrace of federalism — the division of power between federal and state governments — that has gained traction during the second Trump presidency.

Rhode Island state Sen. Tiara Mack said many Democrats, including herself, have been wary of championing states’ rights, an ideology that evokes odious memories of slavery and segregation. But she said constituents are demanding action from state leaders to oppose the White House’s hardline immigration arrest and deportation efforts.

“This new landscape requires legislators to really own the narrative and own the reality that federalism is something that we can use as a tool to strengthen protections for our state,” she said, “and we have to work with states across the country.”

Mack is a co-chair of State Futures’ federal response working group that shares legislative ideas with state lawmakers across the country. This year, she was among those sponsoring Rhode Island legislation that seeks to protect people from immigration arrests while attending court proceedings. Signed into law in June, that law says violators of the protections can be held in contempt of court and can face a lawsuit from those arrested without a judicial order or warrant. 

Virginia Democratic Gov. Abigail Spanberger vetoed a similar bill that would have prohibited immigration enforcement in courthouses, schools and hospitals. In her veto message, the governor said she appreciated the intention of the bill but worried it would put security guards and law enforcement in the “untenable position” of choosing whether to break federal or state law. 

Another Delaware measure is currently awaiting action from Democratic Gov. Matt Meyer.  

Mack said lawmakers are increasingly coordinating across state lines, learning from legislative wins and failures in other capitols. As an example, she pointed to a California law aimed at banning federal and state agents from wearing masks.

A judge blocked that law earlier this year because it exempted state law enforcement, saying it therefore discriminated against federal agents. A similar proposal in Rhode Island, which was held in committee this session, seeks to stop all law enforcement officers from concealing their identity.

Oregon governor signs slew of bills protecting immigrants amid federal crackdown

Oregon Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek signed eight laws this April seeking to defend immigrant rights. Those laws protect against enforcement efforts in schools and hospitals, ensure individuals’ data remains confidential from the feds and allow people to sue the federal government for violating the law.

In Colorado, lawmakers this year expanded the health department’s authority to inspect immigration detention facilities and required compliance with state health and safety standards and reporting rules. That law is currently being challenged by a private prison operator as state officials demand more access and information regarding at least one tuberculosis case among detainees.

Colorado state Sen. Mike Weissman, one of the sponsors of that measure, said he’s worked with Democratic colleagues across conservative and liberal states more than ever before to oppose federal government efforts.

“We all talk because we all have the same concerns,” he said, “and that is to protect the basic freedoms of our people from an absolutely out of control federal regime.”

This story was updated with the number of bills that passed as of Aug. 13. Stateline reporter Kevin Hardy can be reached at khardy@stateline.org.

As the Trump administration continues its crackdown  on illegal immigration, states and cities that have pushed back with so-called sanctuary policies have faced a barrage of lawsuits from the U.S. Department of Justice.

The administration has filed a total of 27 lawsuits against more than 20 cities, counties and states with such policies since Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, according to the Justice Department. In just the past three months, the administration has sued at least a half dozen jurisdictions, including Connecticut, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, a county in Michigan, and the city of Philadelphia, for seeking to place limits on the activities of  U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents.

These policies tend to focus on restricting immigration enforcement in public spaces, limiting how local law enforcement can cooperate with federal immigration authorities, and barring both local and federal immigration agents from wearing masks or otherwise concealing their identity while on duty.

“These sanctuary policies are most times created to help make communities safer. They promote a greater level of trust and cooperation between communities and public institutions of all kinds,” said Cassandra Charles, senior staff attorney at the National Immigration Law Center, an advocacy group.

Some cities have had sanctuary policies since the 1980s, but Charles said many states and cities are creating new protections as the Trump administration has ramped up its deportation campaign. She described the current swell of litigation as “unprecedented.”

Charles said the administration is misinterpreting the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution, which states that federal law trumps state law. That clause, she argued, does not allow the federal government to dictate what laws states can pass, nor does it “create a duty for the states to help the federal government enforce federal law.”

But the Justice Department argues that sanctuary laws violate longstanding constitutional precedent and prevent the federal government from conducting lawful enforcement activities.

“As explained in DOJ’s briefs in these cases, states and localities do not have a right to obstruct federal law enforcement, to regulate the federal government, or to discriminate against the federal government,” Kiersten Pels, an agency spokesperson wrote in an email. “These and other cases simply seek to vindicate that fundamental aspect of our constitutional structure.”

The lawsuits have yielded mixed results.

In May 2025, the Justice Department sued four New Jersey cities (Hoboken, Jersey City, Newark and Paterson) to challenge their policies curtailing local cooperation with federal immigration agents. The next month, a U.S. district judge in New Jersey, appointed by President Joe Biden, tossed out the suit, arguing the cities’ policies didn’t impede ICE activities because of the state’s existing sanctuary laws.

But earlier this month, a U.S. district judge in Pennsylvania sided with the administration in a lawsuit challenging a new Philadelphia policy.

Last month, the administration sued to stop the city of Philadelphia from implementing a new policy barring immigration agents from wearing masks, concealing their badges, or using unmarked vehicles while on the job. Last week, the judge—a Trump appointee—cited the Supremacy Clause in siding with the administration, issuing a preliminary injunction blocking the city from moving forward.

When the Philadelphia City Council approved the policy, the judge ruled, “it attempted to sidestep the Constitution’s clear mandate and disregarded this fundamental principle of law that has informed American jurisprudence for over 200 years.”

The new policy barring officers from concealing their identities was part of a package of seven ICE-related bills the council approved in April. Rue Landau, the city council member who sponsored the package, noted that the other measures have taken effect.

“If the federal government won’t protect their residents, local leaders have the obligation to step up to the plate, and that’s exactly what we did here in Philadelphia,” Landau said. “Great news for Philadelphia: We’ve got six laws on the books, and right now we are working on ensuring that the city of Philadelphia clearly spells out how we’re implementing these laws.”

In late April, the administration filed a similar lawsuit against the state of New Jersey to challenge a law, enacted in March, that prohibits immigration agents from shielding their identity while on duty.

Maryland is the latest state to face a DOJ lawsuit.

Its new law, in effect since May 31, prohibits state and local correctional officers and law enforcement agents from inquiring about or investigating a person’s immigration status. It also bars them from detaining or transferring a person to federal authorities for a suspected immigration violation without a warrant or court order.

Last week, the Justice Department sued Maryland to stop the law, arguing that its “purpose and effect is to obstruct federal law enforcement.”

“Such blatant disregard for federal laws that have been on the books for decades is not merely a political disagreement or passive abstention; it is deliberate, disruptive action that jeopardizes the public safety for all Americans,” the lawsuit states.

In May, local sheriffs from 17 counties in Maryland also sued the state to halt the new law. Their complaint argues that the law puts them in “an impossible and unconstitutional position.”

“If Plaintiffs follow the Act, they are effectively forced to shield removable aliens from federal custody,” the lawsuit states, while “if they continue cooperating with ICE as they have for years, they risk state penalties and lawsuits.”

In some sections, the sheriffs’ lawsuit and the DOJ lawsuit against Maryland employ identical language.

Chris Hajec, head of litigation at the Federation for American Immigration Reform, which favors stricter immigration enforcement and filed the lawsuit on behalf of the sheriffs, said the Maryland law “puts (the sheriffs) in a dilemma.”

“Either they’re violating the state law and they’re going to get sued by their attorney general, or they’re violating the federal criminal law and they could be prosecuted,” Hajec said.

But Maryland Democratic state Sen. Clarence Lam, the Senate sponsor of the new law, dismissed that argument. Lam said the law only limits what state officers can do, without obstructing ICE from carrying out its duties.

“We think that these efforts to block the implementation are bogus,” Lam told Stateline. “We as a state are wholly within our right and jurisdiction to be able to place limitations on what state and local law enforcement agencies can do. There’s nothing that prevents us from doing so, and that’s all this does.”

“Our state taxpayer dollars should not go towards having local law enforcement enforce federal immigration law.”

Stateline reporter Shalina Chatlani can be reached at schatlani@stateline.org.