Texas Attorney General Sues Houston Over Ordinance Limiting ICE Cooperation

On April 16, 2026, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a lawsuit against the City of Houston, Mayor John Whitmire, and members of the Houston City Council, alleging that a newly passed ordinance limiting police cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement violates state law [1]. The suit came just days after Governor Greg Abbott's office froze roughly $115 million in public safety grants to the city — and extended funding threats totaling nearly $200 million to Dallas and Austin as well [2][3].

The confrontation marks the most significant test of Texas's anti-sanctuary-city framework since the legislature passed Senate Bill 4 in 2017 and raises layered questions about federalism, local policing priorities, and the fiscal power the state can wield over its largest city.

What Houston's Ordinance Actually Does

The Houston City Council approved the ordinance on April 8, 2026, in a 12-5 vote. Council Member Alejandra Salinas spearheaded the measure with support from Abbie Kamin and Edward Pollard [4].

The ordinance does three things:

1. Prohibits detention on civil immigration warrants alone. Houston police officers may not stop, arrest, or continue to detain someone based solely on an ICE administrative warrant — a civil document that does not allege a criminal offense [4][5].
2. Eliminates the 30-minute hold. A prior Whitmire administration policy required HPD officers to hold individuals for up to 30 minutes to allow ICE agents to respond to the scene. The ordinance removes that requirement [5].
3. Mandates transparency reporting. HPD must issue quarterly public reports detailing how often officers inquire about immigration status or contact federal authorities [4].

The ordinance does not prevent officers from contacting ICE about criminal warrants. Immigrants charged with a Class B misdemeanor or above, or who have outstanding criminal warrants, are still arrested and booked as usual [5].

Council Member Salinas described the goal as "reducing our cooperation with ICE to the bare minimum that's required under state law" [4]. The Houston Police Officers' Union opposed the measure; union president Douglas Griffith walked out of chambers asking, "Why don't you ask us?" [4].

How Houston Compares to Other Texas Cities

Houston is not acting alone. Across Texas's major cities, local officials face pressure from constituents who want limits on police involvement in immigration enforcement — and counter-pressure from state leaders who insist cooperation is legally required [6].

Austin revised its police policy after officers called ICE on a woman and her daughter who were subsequently deported to Honduras, an incident that generated substantial public anger. The city faces roughly $2.5 million in at-risk state funding [2][6].

Dallas has faced similar demands from residents but has not passed an ordinance as explicit as Houston's. The city stands to lose more than $32 million in grants, plus over $55 million in World Cup public safety funding [2].

San Antonio has taken a more cautious approach, opting for transparency measures. SAPD data shows the department assisted ICE in immigration-related operations just twice in all of 2025 [7].

Source: KSAT / Texas Tribune

Data as of Apr 17, 2026CSV

Houston's ordinance is the most far-reaching of these local measures and the first to use Proposition A powers — a city charter mechanism — to directly override a mayoral administration policy [4].

The Legal Battlefield: SB4 and Its Precedents

Paxton's lawsuit rests primarily on Senate Bill 4, passed during the 2017 legislative session. SB4 prohibits local entities from "adopting, enforcing, or endorsing policies that prohibit or materially limit the enforcement of federal immigration laws" [1][8]. It requires local law enforcement to comply with ICE detainer requests and permits officers to inquire about immigration status during lawful detentions [8].

Paxton stated: "I will not allow any local official to push sanctuary policies that make our communities less safe. Under my watch, no Texas city will be a safe harbor for illegals" [1]. The lawsuit seeks to permanently repeal Houston's ordinance and provide legal protection for officers who cooperate with ICE [1].

The key precedent is City of El Cenizo v. Texas, in which the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld most of SB4 in 2018. The court found that the statute's assistance-cooperation, status-inquiry, and information-sharing provisions did not conflict with federal law and were not preempted [8][9]. However, the court struck down one provision — the application of the "endorsement" prohibition to elected officials — as a likely First Amendment violation [9].

This ruling provides the AG's office with strong appellate support within the Fifth Circuit. But Houston's attorneys may argue the legal landscape has shifted. Immigration attorney Raed Gonzalez noted that portions of SB4 remain subject to ongoing litigation and are "more likely than not" to be found unconstitutional on broader grounds [10]. The ordinance was drafted to stay within what its sponsors believe is the permissible floor of cooperation under state law — a contention the courts will now have to evaluate.

The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: Houston's Constitutional Card

Beyond the state-law question, Houston has a potential federal constitutional defense rooted in the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the federal government cannot compel state and local governments to administer federal programs [11][12].

In Printz v. United States (1997), the Court struck down a federal law requiring local law enforcement to conduct background checks on gun buyers. In New York v. United States (1992), the Court held that Congress cannot force states to enact or enforce a federal regulatory program [11].

Applied to immigration, multiple federal appellate courts have found that ICE detainer requests are voluntary, not mandatory. In United States v. California, the Ninth Circuit held that federal statute 8 U.S.C. § 1373 provided an option for assistance, not a requirement, and that "refusing to help is not the same as impeding" federal operations [11].

The First, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have also invalidated Trump administration attempts to tie federal law enforcement grants to immigration cooperation, finding those conditions violated the separation of powers by infringing on Congress's spending authority [11].

However, the anti-commandeering doctrine constrains the federal government's power over states and cities. Houston's fight is primarily against the state of Texas, and the Tenth Amendment does not prevent a state from directing its own subdivisions. Texas cities are creatures of state law, and the legislature has broader authority to mandate their conduct than the federal government does. This distinction is central: Houston's strongest constitutional arguments apply against federal pressure, while its defense against SB4 depends more on whether the ordinance truly "materially limits" immigration enforcement as defined by Texas statute.

The Money: What Houston Stands to Lose

Governor Abbott's office has identified roughly $110 million in Public Safety Office grants allocated to Houston for fiscal year 2026 [2][3]. The state notified the city on April 13 that these funds were being frozen, and that if the grants are terminated, Houston would be required to repay the full amount within 30 days [3][10].

By April 15, the mayor's office confirmed that approximately $115 million had been frozen, with some HPD services already halted as a result [13]. The funding supports police and fire operations, equipment, and security planning for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, which Houston is set to host [13].

Houston operates on a general fund budget of approximately $3 billion, making the frozen grants roughly 3.7% of general fund spending [13]. While not an existential share, the loss is operationally significant — particularly for specialized programs, equipment procurement, and major-event security that depend on state grant funding.

Mayor Whitmire, who initially voted for the ordinance, called the situation a "crisis" and warned: "This is serious business affecting every Houstonian. It was public safety this time. In a couple of days, it'll be public health" [13]. He indicated he would be "guardedly optimistic" about the council moving to repeal the ordinance [13].

Inside Harris County Jail: The Detainer Data

Harris County Jail holds one of the largest populations of ICE-detainer inmates in the country. As of late 2025, 1,170 of the jail's 9,527 inmates — roughly 12% — had active ICE detainer requests [14].

Source: Fox News / Harris County Records

Data as of Oct 1, 2025CSV

Among those 1,170 inmates, records showed 174 were linked to sexual assault cases (more than half involving children under 14), 75 to murder charges, and 22 to capital murder charges [14]. These figures are frequently cited by enforcement proponents to argue that non-cooperation policies put dangerous individuals back on the street.

But the data requires context. These inmates are already in custody on criminal charges. The ordinance does not require their release — it addresses field encounters where officers interact with individuals who are not under arrest for any crime. The distinction between jail-based cooperation (which continues) and street-level enforcement (which the ordinance limits) is central to the policy debate but is often collapsed in political rhetoric.

Harris County Sheriff Ed Gonzalez terminated a formal cooperation agreement with ICE in 2017, but the jail has continued to hold inmates on criminal charges regardless of their immigration status [14]. Comprehensive year-by-year data on detainer request compliance rates from 2022 through 2025 is not publicly available in a standardized format, a gap that limits rigorous analysis of whether non-cooperation correlates with measurable changes in re-arrest rates.

The Case That Sanctuary Policies Harm Immigrant Communities

Critics of sanctuary ordinances make an argument that goes beyond public safety statistics: that these policies create a false sense of security that can ultimately harm the communities they aim to protect.

The argument runs as follows: when a city signals that local police will not cooperate with ICE, undocumented residents may lower their guard — only to encounter federal agents who operate independently of local policy. ICE conducts its own raids, surveillance operations, and targeted arrests regardless of local ordinances. A resident who believes the city will shield them may be less likely to seek legal counsel, maintain situational awareness, or pursue available legal pathways to documented status.

There is also a concern about criminal victimization within immigrant communities. If non-cooperation policies reduce the perceived consequences of criminal activity targeting undocumented residents — who may be reluctant to report crimes even in sanctuary jurisdictions — the policies could paradoxically increase vulnerability [15].

However, the available research does not support the claim that sanctuary policies increase crime. A 2021 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that sanctuary policies reduced deportations by roughly one-third without affecting local crime rates, and did not reduce deportations of people with violent criminal convictions [15]. A separate study in Justice Quarterly found evidence that sanctuary policies reduced robbery rates in some jurisdictions, with no measurable increase in homicides [15]. Multiple peer-reviewed studies have found either null or negative associations between sanctuary policies and crime rates [16].

On the question of community trust, a 2021 study found that Latinos were more likely to report crime victimization to law enforcement after sanctuary policies were adopted in their jurisdictions [15] — evidence that, at least for some residents, these policies increase rather than decrease engagement with police.

What Mandatory Cooperation Would Cost Houston

If Paxton prevails and the ordinance is struck down, or if the council repeals it under fiscal pressure, HPD and Harris County Jail would need to operationalize full compliance with ICE detainer requests and field cooperation.

The costs of mandatory cooperation are well-documented in other jurisdictions. ICE does not reimburse local jails for the cost of holding inmates beyond their release dates to satisfy detainer requests. Harris County spent over $45 million detaining immigrants for ICE during 2012 and 2013 alone, after accounting for federal reimbursement [17]. Los Angeles County's annual detention costs for ICE holds were estimated at over $26 million, with projected statewide costs in California reaching $65 million [17].

There is also liability exposure. In 2020, Los Angeles County paid $14 million to settle a class-action lawsuit against the LA Sheriff's Department for routinely holding people beyond their release dates on ICE detainer requests [17]. Jurisdictions operating 287(g) agreements — formal partnerships where local officers are deputized to perform immigration enforcement — have faced lawsuits alleging racial profiling, constitutional violations, and civil rights harms [17].

The federal government has expanded financial incentives for cooperation. Starting October 2025, ICE began offering full reimbursement for the salary and benefits of each trained 287(g) officer, including overtime up to 25% of annual salary, and quarterly performance bonuses for agencies that locate ICE-identified targets [17][18]. These incentives offset some costs but do not address the liability risks or the community trust concerns that motivated Houston's ordinance in the first place.

The Undocumented Population at Stake

The Houston metropolitan area is home to an estimated 548,000 undocumented immigrants, with roughly 481,000 in Harris County alone [19]. That makes the Houston area one of the largest concentrations of undocumented residents in the United States.

An estimated 385,000 working-age unauthorized immigrants in Harris County participate in the labor force. About one-quarter live below the poverty line [19]. These residents interact daily with local government services — schools, hospitals, public transit — and their willingness to engage with law enforcement directly affects policing in their neighborhoods.

César Espinosa, executive director of FIEL, a Houston-based immigrant rights organization, warned that enforcement uncertainty is already affecting daily life: "We are so afraid that crimes are going to increase because people are afraid" [10]. Reports have surfaced of undocumented residents being pulled over for minor traffic infractions and facing deportation after officers ran their names through databases, and of domestic abuse victims ending up in deportation proceedings after calling police [10].

What Comes Next

The legal battle will proceed on two tracks. In court, the central question is whether Houston's ordinance "materially limits" the enforcement of federal immigration laws as defined by SB4 — or whether it permissibly declines to participate in civil enforcement while maintaining criminal cooperation. The Fifth Circuit's 2018 ruling in El Cenizo gives Paxton a strong foundation, but the specific provisions of Houston's ordinance — particularly its focus on civil warrants versus criminal warrants — will test the boundaries of that precedent.

Politically, the pressure is more immediate. With $115 million frozen and World Cup security planning at stake, the Houston City Council faces a concrete fiscal deadline. Mayor Whitmire has signaled willingness to repeal. But the 12-5 vote that passed the ordinance suggests a council majority that may resist capitulation without a court order — particularly given that the ordinance was the first exercise of Proposition A authority to override the executive branch [4][13].

The outcome will set a precedent not just for Houston but for every Texas city trying to calibrate its relationship with federal immigration enforcement under state preemption law. With Abbott extending funding threats to Dallas and Austin, the resolution of Houston's case will determine how much latitude — if any — Texas municipalities retain over local policing priorities in the immigration arena [2].