The City of Sacramento is committed to serving all residents, regardless of immigration status, and ensuring City services remain accessible, safe and consistent for the entire community. City property is intended to provide services, programs and resources to the community and is not designated for civil immigration-related enforcement activity.

Sacramento’s approach is guided by longstanding City policies and recent actions, including:

• Sanctuary city policy (reaffirmed 2017): City Resolution No. 2017-0158 establishes that City staff, resources and funding are not used to enforce federal civil immigration law, except as required by law, and prioritizes community trust and access to services. 
•  Immigration platform (updated January 27, 2026): Reaffirms that City resources, including law enforcement resources, are not used to support federal civil immigration enforcement and limits data sharing that could facilitate those activities. 
•  Use of City property for immigration-related enforcement activity (2026): A City Council resolution directs the City Manager to develop a citywide policy restricting the use of City property for civil immigration-related enforcement activity, along with protocols, signage and oversight. 

Under the California Values Act, state and local agencies are prohibited from enforcing federal civil immigration law. The Sacramento Police Department does not enforce federal civil immigration laws and does not detain individuals based solely on immigration status.

City employees who are not police officers

Guidance is available for City employees on responding to interactions with federal agents, including requests for access to nonpublic areas of City property and activity in public areas.

Please review the following FAQ.

Police and immigration enforcement

The Sacramento Police Department (SPD) does not enforce federal civil immigration laws and does not detain individuals based solely on immigration status. City policy and state law prohibit the use of City staff, resources or funding to support federal civil immigration enforcement activities. Police services are provided to all residents regardless of immigration status.

Learn more about SPD’s policies and guidance here.

City immigration-related amicus briefs

• Saget, Patrick v. Donald Trump — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (Case No. 19-1685) 
• United States v. Evelyn Sineneng-Smith — Supreme Court of the United States (Case No. 19-67) 
• Cook County, Illinois, et al. v. Kevin K. McAleenan, et al. — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Case No. 1:19-cv-06334) 
• City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security / State of California v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 19-17213) 
• Jenny Lisette Flores, et al. v. William Barr, et al. — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 19-56326) 
• State of Texas, et al. v. United States of America / Karla Perez, et al. v. State of New Jersey — U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas (Case No. 1:18-cv-00068) 
• Martin Jonathan Batalla Vidal, et al. v. Chad Wolf / State of New York, et al. v. Donald Trump — U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Case Nos. 1:16-cv-04756-NGG-VMS; 17-cv-5228-NGG-RER) 
• R.V. v. Steven T. Mnuchin, et al. — U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland (Case No. 8:20-cv-01148-PWG) 
• Centro Legal de la Raza, et al. v. Executive Office for Immigration Review, et al. — U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (Case No. 3:21-cv-00463-CRB) 
• Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., et al. v. Executive Office of Immigration Review, et al. — U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Case No. 1:21-cv-00094-RJL) 
• Jose Santos Sanchez, et al. v. Alejandro N. Mayorkas, et al. — Supreme Court of the United States (Case No. 20-315) 
• Cook County v. Mayorkas — Supreme Court of the United States (Case No. 20-1775) 
• Arizona v. DHS — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 21-16118) 
• Texas v. United States — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Case No. 21-40680) 
• Joseph R. Biden, et al. v. State of Texas, et al. — Supreme Court of the United States (Case No. 21-954) 
• State of Arizona, et al. v. Joseph R. Biden, et al. — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit (Case No. 22-3272) 
• United States, et al. v. State of Texas, et al. — Supreme Court of the United States (Case No. 22-58) 
• United States, et al. v. Hansen — Supreme Court of the United States (Case No. 22-179) 
• Ramos v. Mayorkas — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 18-16981) 
• State of Texas v. United States — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (Case No. 23-40653) 
• Svitlana Doe v. Noem — U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:25-cv-10495-IT) 
• Gavin Newsom, et al. v. Donald Trump, et al. — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 25-3727) 
• United States v. City of Rochester — U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York (Case No. 6:25-cv-06226) 
• United States v. Newark, et al. — U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (Case No. 2:25-cv-05081) 
• United States v. City of Boston — U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Case No. 1:25-cv-12456) 
• Minnesota v. Noem — U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Case No. 26-cv-00190) 
• United States v. Minnesota, et al. — U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (Case No. 25-cv-03798) 
• Donald Trump v. Barbara, et al. — Supreme Court of the United States (Case No. 25-365) 
• Buenrostro-Mendez v. Bondi — Pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit United States v. State of Illinois — Pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (Case No. 25-2904) 
• United States v. State of California & Newsom, et al. — Pending in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (Case No. 26-926) 
• United States v. County of Washtenaw, Michigan — Pending in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan (Case No. 25-cv-11166)
•  United States v. Connecticut — Pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut (Case No. 3:26-cv-00568)

Private property and business signage (optional)

Private property owners considering erecting signs advising that their property may not be used for civil immigration related enforcement may download an informational sample sign below.

These materials are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice.

Additional resources

Sacramento Rapid Response Network

If you witness immigration enforcement activity in Sacramento, call: (916) 382-0256. 

Learn more: https://www.sacfuelnetwork.org/sacramento-rapid-response-network

Know your rights cards

https://www.ilrc.org/redcards

Contact Us

If you have a a non-urgent immigration-related question or concern please email immigration@cityofsacramento.org or call (916) 808-5704.