State laws governing local cooperation with federal immigration authorities, including sanctuary-policy preemption and E-Verify mandates.
Showing 46 states with state-tier rules in this category. Rankings reflect the strictest controlling state law for each state.
Severity: Permissive · Moderate · Strict
Alabama Code Title 31 Chapter 13 requires every employer in the state to enroll in and use the federal E-Verify program to confirm employee work authorization.
View statute →Alabama Code Title 31 Chapter 13, the Beason-Hammon Act, prohibits municipalities and counties from adopting sanctuary policies that limit immigration enforcement cooperation.
View statute →Arizona requires every employer in the state to use the federal E-Verify program to confirm employment eligibility of all newly hired workers.
View statute →Arizona law prohibits any city, county, or agency from limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities, effectively banning sanctuary policies statewide.
View statute →California prohibits state and local governments from requiring private employers to use the federal E-Verify system except where federal law mandates it, under Government Code 7285.1 and 7285.3. The restriction applies uniformly to every California city and county.
View statute →The California Values Act (SB 54, 2017) codified at Government Code 7284-7284.12 limits state and local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities. It applies uniformly to every California agency and bars participation in most civil immigration enforcement.
View statute →Colorado does not require private employers to use E-Verify and repealed the prior employment eligibility affirmation form in 2016 under HB 16-1114.
View statute →Colorado law limits state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement under HB 19-1124, restricting ICE detainers, courthouse arrests, and information sharing statewide.
View statute →Connecticut does not require private employers or most public contractors to use the federal E-Verify system, leaving participation voluntary under state law.
View statute →The Connecticut TRUST Act under CGS 54-192h restricts state and local law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration detainers and ICE civil enforcement statewide.
View statute →Florida Statute 448.095 requires every private employer with 25 or more employees to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm work authorization for new hires beginning July 1, 2023, with public agencies and contractors subject to broader requirements.
View statute →Senate Bill 168 (2019), codified at FS 908.103 and 908.104, prohibits sanctuary policies in Florida and requires every state and local law enforcement agency to use best efforts to support federal immigration enforcement and honor ICE detainer requests.
View statute →Georgia requires private employers with 11 or more employees to use E-Verify under O.C.G.A. 36-60-6, with annual affidavit certification tied to business licenses.
View statute →Georgia prohibits sanctuary policies under O.C.G.A. 36-80-23 and HB 1105, requiring local governments and law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
View statute →Idaho Code 18-7028 and Executive Order 2009-10 require state agencies and public works contractors doing business with Idaho to enroll in and use the federal E-Verify system to confirm employment eligibility of new hires.
View statute →Idaho Code 18-7106, enacted by HB 463 in 2014, prohibits Idaho cities and counties from adopting sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, requiring full compliance with federal immigration law and detainers.
View statute →The Illinois Right to Privacy in the Workplace Act limits how employers may use E-Verify and bars mandates that exceed federal law, applying uniformly across all Illinois employers.
View statute →The Illinois TRUST Act and Way Forward Act bar state and local law enforcement from civil immigration enforcement, holding ICE detainers, or contracting for immigration detention.
View statute →Indiana requires state agencies, political subdivisions, and their contractors to enroll in and use the federal E-Verify program to confirm employee work eligibility.
View statute →Indiana law prohibits state and local governments from adopting sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, preempting any contrary local rules.
View statute →Iowa has no statewide mandate requiring private employers to use E-Verify, though state agencies and certain contractors must verify employment eligibility.
View statute →Iowa Code chapter 825 prohibits sanctuary policies and requires local entities to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and honor ICE detainers.
View statute →Louisiana requires public contractors and certain private employers to verify employee work authorization through E-Verify or retain documentation under state law.
View statute →Louisiana prohibits sanctuary policies and requires local governments and law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, preempting any contrary local rule.
View statute →Minnesota does not require private employers to use E-Verify, and the state has not enacted a general E-Verify mandate, leaving federal I-9 verification as the universal standard for hiring.
View statute →Minnesota's North Star Act, codified in Minn. Stat. 645.221 and related provisions enacted in 2023, limits state and local agency cooperation with federal immigration enforcement absent a judicial warrant.
View statute →The Mississippi Employment Protection Act of 2008, codified at Miss. Code Section 71-11-3, requires every employer in the state, regardless of size, to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the work eligibility of all newly hired employees.
View statute →Senate Bill 2710, codified at Miss. Code Section 17-21-7 in 2017, prohibits any Mississippi state agency, county, municipality, or public university from adopting sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
View statute →Missouri RSMo 285.530 requires state contractors and public employers to enroll in E-Verify and bars employment of unauthorized aliens, creating a uniform statewide standard for verifying work authorization.
View statute →Missouri RSMo 67.307 forbids any municipality from adopting sanctuary policies, requiring local officials to cooperate with federal immigration authorities and barring restrictions on information-sharing about immigration status.
View statute →New Hampshire imposes no statewide E-Verify mandate; participation in the federal program remains voluntary for most private employers under state law.
View statute →HB 1292 (2024) bars New Hampshire municipalities from adopting sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
View statute →North Carolina requires private employers with 25 or more employees and all government employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm work authorization under NCGS 64-26.
View statute →North Carolina prohibits sanctuary policies under NCGS 153A-145.5 and 160A-205.2, requiring local governments to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and honor lawful immigration detainers.
View statute →Oklahoma requires public employers and state contractors to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm employment eligibility, codified under 25 O.S. 1313 of the Oklahoma Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act.
View statute →Oklahoma prohibits sanctuary policies and requires state and local agencies to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement, codified under 21 O.S. 1290.27 and related statutes.
View statute →South Carolina requires every private and public employer in the state to verify the work authorization of new hires using the federal E-Verify program.
View statute →South Carolina prohibits any local government or law enforcement agency from adopting sanctuary policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
View statute →Tennessee requires private employers with 35 or more employees to use the federal E-Verify program to confirm work authorization under T.C.A. 50-1-703.
View statute →Tennessee bans sanctuary policies statewide under T.C.A. 7-68-101 and following, requiring local governments to cooperate with federal immigration authorities or lose state funding.
View statute →Texas Government Code Chapter 673 requires every state agency and any business that contracts with a state agency to register for and use the federal E-Verify system to confirm the work eligibility of new employees. Private-sector E-Verify use is generally voluntary statewide.
View statute →Texas Government Code Chapter 752, enacted by Senate Bill 4 in 2017, prohibits any local entity, campus police department, or jail from adopting sanctuary policies. Local officials must honor federal immigration detainer requests and may not bar officers from inquiring about immigration status.
View statute →Vermont does not impose a statewide E-Verify mandate on private employers or public contractors, leaving participation in the federal program voluntary under existing federal rules.
View statute →Vermont operates as a statewide sanctuary jurisdiction under 20 V.S.A. 4651 and following, requiring all law enforcement to follow the Fair and Impartial Policing Policy that limits cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
View statute →Washington has no state E-Verify mandate, and RCW 49.60 prohibits employment discrimination based on national origin or immigration-related characteristics statewide.
View statute →Washington's Keep Washington Working Act under RCW 10.93.160 limits state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, establishing statewide sanctuary protections.
View statute →The Maryland Trust Act under Public Safety Article 4-114 restricts state and local agencies from assisting federal civil immigration enforcement and bars ICE detainer holds.
View statute →Hawaii does not require private or public employers to use the federal E-Verify system to confirm employee work authorization. Use of E-Verify in Hawaii is voluntary, except where federal contracts independently require it.
View statute →Hawaii has not enacted a statewide sanctuary law nor a statewide preemption forbidding sanctuary policies. Counties and city governments such as Honolulu have adopted their own policies governing local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
View statute →Kentucky requires E-Verify use by certain state contractors and prohibits local mandates broader than state law. KRS 13B and related statutes condition state contracts and grants on verifying employment eligibility.
View statute →Kentucky prohibits sanctuary policies statewide. Under KRS 65A.020, enacted by HB 6 in 2024, no local government or public agency may adopt or enforce policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
View statute →Maine has no statewide E-Verify mandate for private employers, leaving participation in the federal employment verification system voluntary except for federal contractors.
View statute →Maine has no statewide sanctuary preemption; LD 1259 attempted to bar local sanctuary policies but was not enacted, leaving immigration cooperation decisions to municipalities.
View statute →Nebraska requires state agencies, political subdivisions, and contractors awarded state or local public contracts to use E-Verify for new hires under Neb. Rev. Stat. 4-114. Private employers without public contracts are not required to use E-Verify but may participate voluntarily.
View statute →Nebraska has not enacted a statute preempting sanctuary policies or compelling local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Cities and counties set their own ICE-cooperation policies, subject to general federal law and 8 U.S.C. 1373 information-sharing rules.
View statute →New Jersey does not mandate E-Verify for private employers, leaving participation voluntary statewide while federal contractors must comply with federal Executive Order 12989 requirements.
View statute →Attorney General Directive 2018-6, the Immigrant Trust Directive, limits state, county, and municipal law enforcement cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement across all New Jersey jurisdictions.
View statute →New York has no statewide E-Verify mandate; employers rely on the federal Form I-9 process while New York Labor Law and Human Rights Law restrict status discrimination and protect undocumented workers.
View statute →New York's Green Light Law limits state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and shields DMV records, applying uniformly to every county, city, town, and village in the state.
View statute →Rhode Island has no statewide statutory mandate requiring private employers to use the federal E-Verify system, leaving participation voluntary except for certain state contractors under executive orders that have varied across administrations.
View statute →Rhode Island has no statewide sanctuary preemption statute, leaving cities and towns free to set their own policies on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, with Providence and Central Falls adopting limited sanctuary practices.
View statute →Utah Code 63G-12-301 and following sections require private employers with 15 or more employees to use a status verification system such as E-Verify for new hires.
View statute →Utah Code 17-22-9.5 requires county sheriffs to cooperate with federal immigration authorities, effectively preempting sanctuary policies through HB 497 enforcement provisions.
View statute →Code 40.1-11.2 requires every Virginia state agency and any employer with more than an enumerated workforce performing public contracts over $50,000 to enroll in and use the federal E-Verify program for new hires.
View statute →Code 19.2-83.7 requires Virginia jails to notify ICE before releasing inmates subject to detainers, while 2020 reforms barred state agencies from inquiring into immigration status for service eligibility absent legal requirement.
View statute →West Virginia does not impose a universal statewide E-Verify mandate on private employers, leaving federal law and limited public contracting rules to govern verification.
View statute →West Virginia has no statewide statute banning sanctuary jurisdictions, though legislation such as HB 4456 has been introduced in the Legislature without becoming law.
View statute →Wyoming has not enacted a statute requiring private employers or public contractors to use the federal E-Verify employment eligibility system. Use of E-Verify in Wyoming remains voluntary except where required by federal contracts or federal law.
View statute →Wyoming has not enacted a statewide sanctuary policy or a statewide ban on sanctuary jurisdictions. Cooperation with federal immigration authorities is generally a matter of local sheriff and police discretion within federal constitutional limits.
View statute →Pennsylvania's Public Works Employment Verification Act (43 P.S. Section 167.1 et seq.) requires public works contractors and subcontractors statewide to enroll in and use the federal E-Verify system to confirm work authorization for new employees.
View statute →Alaska has not enacted a statute requiring private employers to use the federal E-Verify system, and there is no statewide preemption either compelling or banning local E-Verify ordinances.
View statute →Alaska has not enacted statewide sanctuary protections or a statewide ban on sanctuary policies, leaving immigration cooperation decisions to individual municipalities and law enforcement agencies.
View statute →Arkansas Code 19-11-105 requires state agencies and contractors performing public work to verify employment eligibility through E-Verify or an equivalent program. Noncompliant contractors may face debarment or contract termination.
View statute →Arkansas prohibits sanctuary policies through Act 1042 of 2021, codified at Arkansas Code 14-1-104 and following. Cities and counties limiting cooperation with federal immigration authorities risk losing state funding and discretionary grants.
View statute →Delaware does not require private employers to use the federal E-Verify system, and the state has not enacted a universal employment verification mandate beyond federal Form I-9 obligations.
View statute →Delaware has no statewide statute mandating or prohibiting sanctuary policies, leaving cooperation with federal immigration authorities to local police and county discretion within general law enforcement statutes.
View statute →Kansas does not impose a statewide E-Verify mandate on private or public employers, leaving participation voluntary under federal program rules.
View statute →Kansas has no statewide statute prohibiting or mandating sanctuary policies, leaving immigration cooperation decisions largely to local jurisdictions.
View statute →Montana has not enacted a statewide E-Verify mandate for private employers, leaving use of the federal employment eligibility system voluntary except for federal contractors.
View statute →Montana has no statewide sanctuary preemption law in force; HB 200 attempted to ban sanctuary jurisdictions but was vetoed, leaving local discretion under existing cooperation norms.
View statute →Nevada does not mandate E-Verify use by private employers, though state agencies and certain public contractors may participate voluntarily under federal contractor rules.
View statute →Nevada has no statewide statute mandating or prohibiting sanctuary policies, leaving counties and cities free to set their own immigration cooperation rules.
View statute →New Mexico does not mandate use of the federal E-Verify employment eligibility system for private employers and imposes no statewide statutory verification requirements beyond federal Form I-9.
View statute →New Mexico has no statewide statute making it a sanctuary state, though a 2019 executive directive limits state law enforcement cooperation with federal immigration authorities for civil enforcement purposes.
View statute →North Dakota does not require private employers to use E-Verify, leaving participation in the federal employment verification system voluntary for most businesses statewide.
View statute →North Dakota has no statewide sanctuary preemption law, leaving cities and counties free to set their own immigration enforcement cooperation policies under home rule authority.
View statute →Oregon does not mandate E-Verify use by private employers and has no statewide statute requiring electronic employment eligibility verification beyond federal I-9 rules.
View statute →Oregon enacted the nation's oldest statewide sanctuary law, ORS 181A.820, barring state and local agencies from using resources to enforce federal civil immigration law.
View statute →South Dakota does not require private employers or most public employers to use E-Verify, leaving participation voluntary except where federal contracts impose it.
View statute →South Dakota has no statewide statute banning sanctuary policies or compelling local cooperation with ICE, leaving immigration enforcement choices to local governments and federal partners.
View statute →