Citizen in a RepublicNH Bill Briefing
← All bills

HB 511 · 2025 · House · Criminal Justice and Public Safety Committee

Banning sanctuary immigration policies

AI-generated

relative to cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Requires law enforcement agencies to honor federal immigration detainers when safe, bars state and local governments from adopting sanctuary policies restricting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, and limits inmate citizenship inquiries to those tied to alleged state law violations.AI-generated

Status

Signed into law · May 22, 2025
  1. ✓Introduced
  2. ✓House
  3. ✓Senate
  4. ✓Governor
  5. ✓Law

Analysis

This bill: I. Requires law enforcement agencies to comply with immigration detainers of inmates if safe to do so and prohibits state and local government entities from adopting sanctuary policies to prohibit or impede the enforcement of federal immigration law. II. Prohibits New Hampshire law enforcement agencies from investigating an inmate's citizenship status unless subsequent to an alleged violation of New Hampshire law or pursuant to an authorization by law. III. Prohibits blanket policies against compliance with immigration detainers for inmates and prohibits any government entity or law enforcement agency from restricting the use and transmission of inmate immigration information used in compliance with the chapter. IV. Provides exceptions for certain witnesses to or victims of crime.

From the bill's official ANALYSIS section.

In the bill's words

Quoted verbatim from the bill as enacted.

“No state government entity, local government entity, or law enforcement agency shall knowingly enact, issue, adopt, promulgate, enforce, permit, endorse, maintain, or have in effect any sanctuary policy.”
RSA 106-P:2

The operative ban. It reaches every level of New Hampshire government and every form a policy can take — written rule, informal practice, or custom.AI-generated

““Sanctuary policy” means a law, policy, practice, procedure, or custom adopted or allowed by a state entity or local governmental entity which prohibits or impedes a law enforcement agency from complying with 8 U.S.C. section 1373 or which prohibits or impedes a law enforcement agency from communicating or cooperating with a federal immigration agency so as to limit such law enforcement agency in, or prohibit the agency from:”
RSA 106-P:1, VI

The definition is the bill’s reach: any local rule that impedes cooperation — up to and including 287(g) participation, jail interviews, and release-date notice — is a sanctuary policy.AI-generated

“A law enforcement agency shall, to the extent possible and their ability to safely do so, comply with immigration detainers for an inmate discovered during the investigation of a violation of New Hampshire law. Unless otherwise authorized by law, no New Hampshire law enforcement agency shall investigate or take part in investigations related to an inmate’s citizenship status, unless it is subsequent to an alleged violation of New Hampshire law. No agency shall have an explicit or implied blanket policy against honoring immigration detainers for inmates. Any agency refusing to honor an immigration detainer for an inmate shall report each such refusal to the attorney general in a time, form, and manner to be prescribed by him or his designee.”
RSA 106-P:3, I

The detainer duty is qualified ("to the extent possible," "safely"), but blanket non-compliance is barred outright and every refusal must be reported to the attorney general.AI-generated

“Unless otherwise authorized by law, no New Hampshire law enforcement agency shall investigate or take part in investigations related to an inmate’s citizenship status, unless it is subsequent to an alleged violation of New Hampshire law.”
RSA 106-P:3, I

The limit the bill’s supporters pointed to in debate: status checks are tied to an alleged state-law violation, not fishing expeditions.AI-generated

“This section does not apply to any alien unlawfully present in the United States if he or she is or has been a necessary witness or victim of a crime of domestic violence, rape, sexual exploitation, sexual assault, murder, manslaughter, assault, battery, human trafficking, kidnapping, false imprisonment, involuntary servitude, fraud in foreign labor contracting, blackmail, extortion, or witness tampering, unless an immigration detainer is on file for the person and the nature of the reason for the detainer is that the person is wanted for involvement in a similar crime to those listed, or the person is wanted for reasons related to terrorism, or the person is noted as being dangerous on the detainer, or the totality of the circumstances would lead a reasonable officer to conclude that the person’s release would put the public in danger. In any such case, the agency shall work with the federal immigration authorities to help ensure the availability of the person to participate in the prosecution of the state crime.”
RSA 106-P:3, III

The victim-and-witness carve-out, added by amendment, with its own list of exceptions that pull a person back under the detainer duty.AI-generated

“Any executive or administrative state, county, or municipal officer who violates his or her duties under this chapter may be subject to action by the attorney general, who may file suit against a local governmental entity or local law enforcement agency in a court of competent jurisdiction for declaratory or injunctive relief for a violation of this chapter. II. If a local governmental entity or local law enforcement agency violates this chapter, the court shall enjoin the unlawful sanctuary policy. The court has continuing jurisdiction over the parties and subject matter and may enforce its orders with the initiation of contempt proceedings as provided by law.”
RSA 106-P:4, I–II

Enforcement runs through the attorney general and the courts — injunctions against the policy, backed by contempt, rather than penalties on individual officers.AI-generated

Official record

Bill page — docket & status

gc.nh.gov · the authoritative source

Sponsors

Rep. Joe SweeneyRPrimeDeputy Majority Leader
  • Rep. Ross BerryRChair· Election Law
  • Rep. Thomas WalshRChair· Transportation
  • Sen. Daryl AbbasRVice Chair· Judiciary
  • Sen. Bill GannonRChair· Judiciary

Also: Rep. Donald McFarlaneR

Public testimony

280 signed in online · 80 wrote testimony

31% support69% oppose0% neutral

ForSanctuary policies endanger public safety

AgainstErodes trust, chilling crime reporting by victims/witnesses

AI-generatedLeading arguments, summarized by the testimony tool.

Read the arguments

In their wordsVerbatim, exactly as submitted

“Sanctuary towns or cities that prohibit their law enforcement officers from working with federal immigration authorities not only undermine our federal immigration laws but also put law-abiding citizens at risk and create more of an incentive for illegal immigration.”
— Jonathan Stone, Claremontsupports
“Please pass this bill and keep our cities and state safe for our children.”
— Julie Sims, Newportsupports
“Please pass this bill and keep our cities and state safe for all.”
— Roy Sims, Newportsupports
“Gleaned from our opposition to similar legislation put forward in 2024: I represent many of the same constituents as you and enjoy a similar obligation to ensure the safety of our communities.…”
— Tyler Ward, PETERBOROUGH · Peterborough's Constituentsopposes
“This bill is unnecessary. It fuels hatred. There are greater needs than focusing on a bill which intends to undermine community trust in law enforcement and prevent community members from engaging with the police in cases where they are victims or witnesses of crime.”
— Peter Lovett, Holdernessopposes
“Local law enforcement would be burdened with tasks belonging to federal law enforcement, making them less available for their local responsibilities.”
— Susan Richman, Durhamopposes

Verbatim excerpts of submitted testimony, quoted from the testimony tool.

Read the testimony · as of Aug 12, 2026

Votes

yeanay
Starting text: Bill as introduced
  • Jan 24, 2025HouseCommittee report· regular calendar: Ought to Pass with Amendment # 2025-0079h16–0
    Overall
    100% yea
  • Feb 6, 2025HouseDivisionAmendment 2025-0079hAdopted356–0
    Overall
    100% yea
  • Feb 6, 2025HouseRoll callOught to Pass with Amendment 2025-0079hAdopted351–6How they voted
    Overall
    98% yea
    Republicans
    208–0100% yea
    Democrats
    143–696% yea
    Resulting text: Bill as amended by the House
  • Apr 2, 2025HouseCommittee report· regular calendar: Ought to Pass with Amendment # 2025-0785h14–11
    Overall
    56% yea
  • Apr 10, 2025HouseRoll callAmendment 2025-0785hFailed36–337How they voted
    Overall
    10% yea
    Republicans
    30–17714% yea
    Democrats
    5–1603% yea
    Other
    1–0100% yea
  • Apr 10, 2025HouseRoll callOught to PassAdopted211–161How they voted
    Overall
    57% yea
    Party-line vote
    Republicans
    207–0100% yea
    Democrats
    3–1612% yea
    Other
    1–0100% yea
    Resulting text: Bill as amended by the House
  • May 15, 2025SenateCommittee report: Ought to Pass3–2
    Overall
    60% yea
  • May 15, 2025SenateRoll callOught to PassAdopted15–8How they voted
    Overall
    65% yea
    Party-line vote
    Republicans
    15–0100% yea
    Democrats
    0–80% yea
  • May 15, 2025SenateVoice voteEnrolledadopted

Hearings and debates

Timestamps locate where this bill is taken up in the chamber's YouTube stream.

Legislative history

  1. Jan 9, 2025HouseIntroduced (in recess of) 01/09/2025 and referred to Criminal Justice and Public Safety HJ 3 P. 13
  2. Jan 22, 2025HousePublic Hearing: 01/22/2025 03:30 pm LOB 301-303
  3. Jan 24, 2025HouseExecutive Session: 01/24/2025 08:00 am LOB 301-303
  4. Jan 24, 2025House: Ought to Pass with Amendment # 2025-0079h 01/24/2025 (Vote 16-0; RC) HC 10 P. 7
  5. Feb 6, 2025HouseAmendment # 2025-0079h: AA DV 356-0 02/06/2025 HJ 4 P. 8
  6. Feb 6, 2025HouseOught to Pass with Amendment 2025-0079h: MA RC 351-6 02/06/2025 HJ 4 P. 8
  7. Feb 6, 2025HouseReferred to Finance 02/06/2025 HJ 4 P. 12
  8. Mar 5, 2025HouseDivision I Work Session: 03/05/2025 01:00 pm LOB 212
  9. Mar 14, 2025HouseDivision I Work Session: 03/14/2025 10:00 am LOB 212
  10. Apr 1, 2025HouseExecutive Session: 04/01/2025 10:00 am LOB 210-211
  11. Apr 2, 2025HouseMajority : Ought to Pass with Amendment # 2025-0785h 04/02/2025 (Vote 14-11; RC) HC 19 P. 16
  12. Apr 3, 2025HouseMinority : Inexpedient to Legislate
  13. Apr 10, 2025HouseAmendment # 2025-0785h: AF RC 36-337 04/10/2025 HJ 12 P. 36
  14. Apr 10, 2025HouseOught to Pass: MA RC 211-161 04/10/2025 HJ 12 P. 39
  15. Mar 27, 2025SenIntroduced 03/27/2025 and Referred to Judiciary; SJ 10
  16. Apr 29, 2025SenHearing: 04/29/2025, Room 100, SH, 01:40 pm; SC 19
  17. May 15, 2025Sen: Ought to Pass, 05/15/2025, Vote 3-2; SC 21A
  18. May 15, 2025SenOught to Pass: RC 15Y-8N, MA; OT3rdg; 05/15/2025; SJ 13
  19. May 15, 2025SenEnrolled Adopted, VV, (In recess 05/15/2025); SJ 14
  20. May 8, 2025HouseEnrolled (in recess of) 05/08/2025 HJ 14 P. 62
  21. May 22, 2025HouseSigned by Governor Ayotte 05/22/2025; Chapter 39; eff. 01/01/2026

Coverage

Background reading

Evergreen reading on the policy area — spanning perspectives — not coverage of this specific bill.

  • “Sanctuary” Jurisdictions: Legal OverviewExplainer — legal

    Congressional Research Service — What federal law does and does not require of state and local governments, including 8 U.S.C. § 1373 and the constitutional limits on commandeering local police.AI-generated

  • Sanctuary Policies: An OverviewExplainer

    American Immigration Council — A plain-language primer on what “sanctuary” policies actually say, how detainers work, and why the term covers a wide range of local rules.AI-generated

  • Delegation of Immigration Authority: Section 287(g)Federal program — primary source

    U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement — ICE's own description of the three 287(g) models and what a participating sheriff or police department agrees to — the program the New Hampshire laws protect from local interference.AI-generated

  • Fact Sheet on Sanctuary Policies and 8 USC 1373Immigrant-rights / legal

    Immigrant Legal Resource Center — Argues that § 1373 reaches only information sharing, so most local limits on detainer compliance remain lawful — the counter-reading to the anti-sanctuary case.AI-generated

  • Map: Sanctuary Cities, Counties, and StatesEnforcement advocacy

    Center for Immigration Studies — The restrictionist tally of jurisdictions that decline detainers, built from ICE detainer-refusal data — the dataset most often cited by supporters of bans like this one.AI-generated

  • Sanctuary policies reduce deportations without increasing crimeAcademic — national evidence

    PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) — A 2020 study finding sanctuary policies cut deportations by about a third, with no measurable effect on crime rates and no drop in deportations of people with violent convictions.AI-generated

  • Know Your Rights: Immigrants’ RightsNH context — civil liberties

    ACLU of New Hampshire — New Hampshire-specific guidance on encounters with police, ICE, and Border Patrol — the practical side of what changes when local agencies cooperate.AI-generated

Documents (PDF)

Bill text & amendments link direct to gc.nh.gov; committee reports stream from the state record.