Rhode Island Governor says DOJ’s Aug. 19 Sanctuary‑Status Deadline ‘Does Not Merit a Response’

Rhode Island, along with 12 other states, 4 counties and 18 cities/towns will have until August 19th to respond to the US Attorney General’s letter demanding they abolish their “Sanctuary” policies.

In New England, only Rhode Island, Connecticut and Vermont have statewide policies – along with the city of Boston in Massachusetts.

Governors, Mayors and governing officials need to “confirm your commitment with complying with federal law and identify the immediate initiatives you are taking to eliminate laws, policies and practices that impede federal immigration enforcementâ€.

Rhode Island response

While no official response has yet been sent, a statement provided to us by Gov. McKee says, “This generic, non-specific form letter lacks any meaningful detail and does not merit a response.”  Attorney General Neronha also pushed back, calling the DOJ’s approach “the tactics of a bully”, and saying court action could be in the future. (AG Neronha has a press conference set for Mon, Aug. 18th but with no topic of that event listed at press time).

Other responses

As of publication time, there’s one notable jurisdiction that did change its sanctuary policies in response to the DOJ’s actions: Louisville. According to a Department of Justice press release, Louisville’s Mayor Craig Greenberg agreed to revoke the city’s sanctuary policies following the letter from the DOJ that threatened legal action if the city did not comply.

Washington, D.C.‘s policy was nullified by DOJ, and is under litigation, being challenged by D.C officials.

Colorado is doubling down, defined as “Defiant and strengthening” their sanctuary position.

Boston‘s Mayor Wu and her administration remain steadfast in maintaining the city’s sanctuary status and are publicly rejecting the DOJ’s demands – and saying they are “crafting a response”.

Connecticut‘s Attorney General William Tong rejected the sanctuary classification, saying, “There is nothing in our laws or statutes that says Connecticut is a ‘sanctuary’ state. We are not.â€

Vermont’s Governor immediately issued a statement upon receipt of the demand letter, saying it has not declared itself a “sanctuary jurisdiction†and continues to comply fully with federal immigration law: “Vermont maintains full compliance with federal law while protecting the Constitutional rights of citizens and the State. This means, Vermont doesn’t stand in the way of the federal government carrying out federal immigration laws in Vermont.â€

Las Vegas Mayor Shelley Berkley responded emphatically: “We have never been a sanctuary city, we are not a sanctuary city, we’re not going to be a sanctuary city.â€

Georgia law has explicitly banned sanctuary policies since 2009, and municipalities are required to annually certify compliance.

The other states cities, towns, and counties have not responded that we know of.

___

What some Rhode Islanders say:

A few days ago, RINewsToday conducted an informal poll on what Rhode Islanders think the state’s response should be:

Sanctuary Jurisdiction characteristics include:

1. Public Declarations: Cities, states, or counties that publicly declare themselves a sanctuary jurisdiction or equivalent, with the intent to undermine federal immigration enforcement.
2. Laws, Ordinances, Executive Directives: Cities, states, or counties that have laws, ordinances, regulations, resolutions, policies, or other formalized practices that obstruct or limit local law enforcement cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
3. Restrictions on Information Sharing: Cities, states, or counties that limit whether and how local agencies share information about immigration status of detainees with federal authorities.
4. Funding Restrictions: Cities, states, or counties that prohibit local funds or resources from being used to support federal immigration enforcement efforts.
5. Non-cooperation with Federal Immigration Enforcement: Cities, states, or counties that provide training to city employees and police on enforcing sanctuary policies and declining to respond to ICE requests for information.
6. Limits on ICE Detainers: Cities, states, or counties that refuse to honor ICE detainer requests unless there is a warrant signed by a judge.
7. Jail Access Restrictions: Cities, states, or counties that restrict ICE agents’ ability to interview detainees absent detainee consent.
8. Immigrant Community Affairs Offices: Cities, states, or counties that create dedicated offices to engage and advise illegal alien communities on evading federal law enforcement officers.
9. Federal Benefit Programs: Cities, states, or counties that circumvent federal laws prohibiting the provision of federal benefits to illegal aliens and provide them with access to benefits, including health care assistance, legal aid, food and housing assistance, and other subsidies. This includes cities, states, or counties that establish stand-alone benefit programs or equivalents.

The California letter, sent to Gov. Newsom, identical to that received by other states (including Rhode Island), counties and cities:

___

The Justice Department also published an updated list of states, cities, and counties identified as having policies, laws, or regulations that impede enforcement of federal immigration laws.

“Sanctuary policies impede law enforcement and put American citizens at risk by design,†said Attorney General Pamela Bondi. “The Department of Justice will continue bringing litigation against sanctuary jurisdictions and work closely with the Department of Homeland Security to eradicate these harmful policies around the country.â€

The list will be updated as officials reply with their sanctuary response.

___

Sanctuary States, Counties, Cities in the US

President Trump Executive Order 14287 – Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.

The Executive Order recognized that “some State and local officials . . . continue to use their authority to violate, obstruct, and defy the enforcement of Federal immigration laws†and “[i]t is imperative that the Federal Government restore the enforcement of United States law.†The Executive Order directed the Justice Department, in collaboration with the Department of Homeland Security, to publish a list of such jurisdictions. Accordingly, the following states, cities, and counties have been identified as sanctuary jurisdictions:

STATES:

• California
• Colorado
• Connecticut
• Delaware
• District of Columbia
• Illinois
• Minnesota
• Nevada
• New York
• Oregon
• Rhode Island
• Vermont
• Washington

COUNTIES:

• Baltimore County, MD
• Cook County, IL
• San Diego County, CA
• San Francisco County, CA

CITIES:

• Albuquerque, NM
• Berkeley, CA
• Boston, MA
• Chicago, IL
• Denver, CO
• East Lansing, MI
• Hoboken, NJ
• Jersey City, NJ
• Los Angeles, CA
• New Orleans, LA
• New York City, NY
• Newark, NJ
• Paterson, NJ
• Philadelphia, PA
• Portland, OR
• Rochester, NY
• Seattle, WA
• San Francisco City, CA

(Updated August 5, 2025)

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered:

Section 1 . Purpose and Policy. Federal supremacy with respect to immigration, national security, and foreign policy is axiomatic. The Constitution provides the Federal Government with plenary authority regarding immigration to protect the sovereignty of our Nation and to conduct relations with other nations, who must be able to deal with one national Government on such matters. This power is sometimes contained in specific constitutional provisions: Article II of the Constitution vests the power to protect national security and conduct foreign policy in the President of the United States, and Article IV, Section 4, requires the Federal Government to “protect each of [the States] against Invasion.†This Federal power over immigration is also an inherent element of national sovereignty.

The prior administration allowed unchecked millions of aliens to illegally enter the United States. The resulting public safety and national security risks are exacerbated by the presence of, and control of territory by, international cartels and other transnational criminal organizations along the southern border, as well as terrorists and other malign actors who intend to harm the United States and the American people. This invasion at the southern border requires the Federal Government to take measures to fulfill its obligation to the States.

Yet some State and local officials nevertheless continue to use their authority to violate, obstruct, and defy the enforcement of Federal immigration laws. This is a lawless insurrection against the supremacy of Federal law and the Federal Government’s obligation to defend the territorial sovereignty of the United States. Beyond the intolerable national security risks, such nullification efforts often violate Federal criminal laws, including those prohibiting obstruction of justice (18 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), unlawfully harboring or hiring illegal aliens (8 U.S.C. 1324), conspiracy against the United States (18 U.S.C. 371), and conspiracy to impede Federal law enforcement (18 U.S.C. 372). Assisting aliens in violating Federal immigration law could also violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. 1961 et seq.). Some measures to assist illegal aliens also necessarily violate Federal laws prohibiting discrimination against Americans in favor of illegal aliens and protecting Americans’ civil rights.

It is imperative that the Federal Government restore the enforcement of United States law.

Sec. 2 . Designation of “Sanctuary†Jurisdictions. (a) Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General, in coordination with the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall publish a list of States and local jurisdictions that obstruct the enforcement of Federal immigration laws (sanctuary jurisdictions). After this initial publication, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall update this list as necessary.

(b) Immediately following each publication under subsection (a) of this section, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall notify each sanctuary jurisdiction regarding its defiance of Federal immigration law enforcement and any potential violations of Federal criminal law.

Sec. 3 . Consequences for Sanctuary Jurisdiction Status. (a) With respect to sanctuary jurisdictions that are designated under section 2(a) of this order, the head of each executive department or agency (agency), in coordination with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget and as permitted by law, shall identify appropriate Federal funds to sanctuary jurisdictions, including grants and contracts, for suspension or termination, as appropriate.

(b) With respect to jurisdictions that remain sanctuary jurisdictions after State or local officials are provided notice of such status under section 2(b) of this order and yet remain in defiance of Federal law, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall pursue all necessary legal remedies and enforcement measures to end these violations and bring such jurisdictions into compliance with the laws of the United States.

Sec. 4 . Preventing Federal Benefits for Aliens in Sanctuary Jurisdictions. The Secretary of Homeland Security, in coordination with the Attorney General, shall develop guidance, rules, or other appropriate mechanisms to ensure appropriate eligibility verification is conducted for individuals receiving Federal public benefits within the meaning of 8 U.S.C. 1611(c) from private entities in a sanctuary jurisdiction, whether such verification is conducted by the private entity or by a governmental entity on its behalf.

Sec. 5 . Equal Treatment of Americans. The Attorney General, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security and appropriate agency heads, shall identify and take appropriate action to stop the enforcement of State and local laws, regulations, policies, and practices favoring aliens over any groups of American citizens that are unlawful, preempted by Federal law, or otherwise unenforceable, including State laws that provide in-State higher education tuition to aliens but not to out-of-State American citizens that may violate 8 U.S.C. 1623 or that favor aliens in criminal charges or sentencing.

Sec. 6 . General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

In recent months, the Justice Department has filed several lawsuits against sanctuary jurisdictions seeking to compel compliance with federal law, including one against New York City on July 24th. Recently, the Mayor of Louisville agreed to revoke their sanctuary policies following a letter from the Justice Department threatening legal action.