Many U.S. cities and counties are commonly described as “sanctuary” jurisdictions, but there is no single official nationwide definition or master list, and policies change over time. Most current lists come from advocacy or policy groups tracking local limits on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, so any list should be treated as approximate and time‑sensitive.

What “sanctuary city” means

  • A sanctuary city usually refers to a city (or county/state) whose laws or policies limit how much local police or officials help enforce federal immigration law.
  • Typical measures include:
    • Not asking about immigration status during routine police or city interactions.
* Refusing to hold people in local jails solely on civil immigration detainers without a judicial warrant.
  • Because there is no uniform legal definition, one city’s “sanctuary” policy can be much stricter or looser than another’s.

Examples of major sanctuary cities

Different organizations highlight different places, but large, frequently cited sanctuary cities in the United States include:

  • New York City, New York – Long‑standing limits on cooperation with immigration detainers, with some exceptions for serious crimes.
  • Los Angeles, California – LAPD and city policies restrict questioning on immigration status and limit detainer cooperation.
  • San Francisco, California – One of the earliest to formally adopt a “City and County of Refuge”/sanctuary policy in local code.
  • Chicago, Illinois – “Welcoming City” ordinance that curtails status inquiries and detainer compliance in most cases.
  • Seattle, Washington – City and county policies limiting local involvement in federal immigration enforcement.
  • Boston, Massachusetts – Adopts “Trust Act”–style limits on detainers and status questions in many contexts.
  • Denver, Colorado – Local rules reducing cooperation with civil immigration detainers.
  • Philadelphia, Pennsylvania – Policies restricting local jails from honoring immigration detainers without judicial warrants.
  • Portland, Oregon – City and state‑level laws limiting local participation in federal immigration enforcement.
  • New Orleans, Louisiana – Identified in sanctuary‑jurisdiction lists for limits on detainer cooperation.

These are only examples; many mid‑sized cities and counties also have sanctuary or “welcoming” policies.

Sample jurisdictions often listed

Several trackers list hundreds of sanctuary jurisdictions, including both cities and counties. Examples drawn from such lists include:

  • California : San Francisco, Los Angeles, Berkeley, and multiple sanctuary counties.
  • New York : New York City, Albany, Rochester, plus numerous counties with protection policies.
  • New Jersey : Jersey City, Newark, Hoboken, and others listed as sanctuary or similar.
  • Maryland : Baltimore City and several suburban counties (e.g., Montgomery, Prince George’s).
  • New Mexico : Santa Fe, Las Cruces, and a broad set of counties restricting ICE detainers in local jails.
  • Virginia : Dozens of counties and independent cities appear on some advocacy maps for adopting “sanctuary” or analogous resolutions.

Because these compilations come from advocacy groups or think tanks with particular perspectives, they may not match how local officials describe themselves.

Why there’s no single definitive list

  • No federal registry : The U.S. federal government does not maintain a stable, official list of “sanctuary cities.”
  • Policy changes : Cities and counties regularly adjust policies in response to court rulings, state laws, or federal pressure, so maps and lists quickly go out of date.
  • Political framing : Some jurisdictions reject the “sanctuary” label even if they limit cooperation with immigration authorities, while critics may apply the label more broadly.

For the most up‑to‑date picture of which cities are considered sanctuary cities, looking at a current sanctuary‑jurisdictions map or database maintained by a policy or advocacy organization is usually necessary.

Important note

Sanctuary policies do not mean that immigration laws do not apply in those cities; they mainly govern how much local resources are devoted to helping federal immigration enforcement. Laws and enforcement practices can also differ between city police, county sheriffs, and state agencies even within the same metro area.