I 
114TH CONGRESS 
2D SESSION 
H. R. 6519 
To protect any State or local authority that limits or restricts compliance 
with an immigration detainer request remains eligible for grants and 
appropriated funds. 
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
DECEMBER 8, 2016 
Mr. QUIGLEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Com-
mittee on the Judiciary, and in addition to the Committee on Oversight 
and Government Reform, for a period to be subsequently determined by 
the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall with-
in the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 
A BILL 
To protect any State or local authority that limits or restricts 
compliance with an immigration detainer request remains 
eligible for grants and appropriated funds. 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa-
tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 
This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Safeguarding Sanc-
tuary Cities Act of 2016’’. 
SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 
Congress finds the following: 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:33 Dec 15, 2016
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H6519.IH
H6519
SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
(1) Existing Federal law authorizes any author-
ized immigration officer to issue an immigration de-
tainer that serves to advise another law enforcement 
agency that the Federal department seeks custody of 
an undocumented immigrant presently in the cus-
tody of that agency, for the purpose of arresting and 
removing the undocumented immigrant. 
(2) Unlike criminal detainers, which are sup-
ported by a warrant and require probable cause, 
there is no requirement for a warrant and no estab-
lished standard of proof, such as reasonable sus-
picion or probable cause, for issuing an ICE detainer 
request. Immigration detainers have erroneously 
been placed on United States citizens, as well as im-
migrants who are not deportable. 
(3) Galarza v. Szalczyk, U.S. Court of Appeals 
for the Third Circuit ruled in March 2014 that 
states and counties are not required to keep undocu-
mented immigrants in jail on immigration detainers; 
and in April 2014, Miranda-Olivares v. Clackamas 
County, the U.S. District Court in Portland, Oregon 
found that county governments would be exposed to 
civil rights lawsuits for honoring detainers not issued 
in compliance with Fourth Amendment protections, 
including a showing of probable cause. 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:33 Dec 15, 2016
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6201
E:\BILLS\H6519.IH
H6519
SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
SEC. 3. DISCRETION TO COMPLY WITH IMMIGRATION DE-
TAINERS. 
Notwithstanding any other provision of law (includ-
ing section 642 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Im-
migrant Responsibility Act of 1996), if a State or unit 
of local government has in place any policy that limits or 
restricts compliance with a detainer or otherwise does not 
comply with a detainer, Federal financial assistance (as 
such term is defined in section 7501(a)(5) of title 31, 
United States Code) that the State or unit of local govern-
ment would otherwise receive may not be reduced or not 
made available to that State or unit of local government 
by reason of such noncompliance. 
SEC. 4. DEFINITIONS. 
In this Act, the term ‘‘detainer’’ means any order or 
request by the Secretary of Homeland Security to a State 
or local official— 
(1) to temporarily hold a person in the custody 
of that State or unit of local government until such 
person may be taken into Federal custody; 
(2) to transport such a person for transfer to 
Federal custody; or 
(3) to notify the Secretary prior to the release 
of such a person. 
Æ 
VerDate Sep 11 2014 
23:33 Dec 15, 2016
Jkt 069200
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 6652
Sfmt 6301
E:\BILLS\H6519.IH
H6519
SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS