|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The cities of Mountain View and Menlo Park, as well as San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, have been sent notice they are out of compliance with federal immigration statutes as part of an executive order President Donald Trump signed on April 28, 2025.
The “Sanctuary Jurisdiction List,” which was published May 29 but taken down after backlash from local officials around the country, identified jurisdictions that are “deliberately and shamefully obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws endangering American communities,” according to a press release by the Department of Homeland Security.
The list was taken down on Sunday, June 1, according to news reports at the time. The National Sheriffs’ Association demanded DHS remove the list and said it lacked transparency. Association president Sheriff Kieran Donahue said compliant sheriffs had no idea why their jurisdictions were included.
DHS has not said if the list’s removal will affect the notices it sent out.
“These sanctuary city politicians are endangering Americans and our law enforcement in order to protect violent criminal illegal aliens,” said DHS Secretary Kristi Noem in a press release. “We are exposing these sanctuary politicians who harbor criminal illegal aliens and defy federal law… Sanctuary politicians are on notice: comply with federal law.”
“The City of Mountain View is committed to being a ‘Community for All’ and supports a safe community for all who live in Mountain View. We are aware that the City of Mountain View has been placed on the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s list of ‘sanctuary jurisdictions defying federal immigration law,’” Mountain View said in a statement to this news organization.
Mountain View said that it does not ask the immigration status of any victims, witnesses or individuals who contact MVPD for help.
“The city is trying to learn what this designation may mean for the city including any financial impacts from the federal government,” the statement added. Menlo Park also said in a statement it is trying to understand the impacts.
“Sanctuary cities” is a term referring to cities that have limited or refused to cooperate with federal immigration officials. Sometimes local and federal immigration policies conflict.
The sheriffs of San Mateo and Santa Clara counties were not immediately available to comment.
Notably missing from the list: the city of Palo Alto, which joined a lawsuit on May 26 that argues an executive order issued in January to withhold funds from jurisdictions that adopted sanctuary ordinances violates the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. On April 24, U.S. District Court Judge William Orrick issued a preliminary injunction barring the order from going into effect.
The Menlo Park City Council voted on June 3 to join the lawsuit.
The sanctuary jurisdiction list included 48 of California’s 58 counties and jurisdictions in 35 states in addition to Washington D.C.
Even if local cities wanted to work with federal authorities, the California Values Act prevents local jurisdictions from using their resources to investigate or arrest individuals for immigration enforcement purposes. Jurisdictions may still cooperate with deportation proceedings involving serious offenses.
Most sanctuary city policies involve “civil detainer requests,” which are requests Immigration and Customs Enforcement sends to law enforcement agencies asking them to hold individuals beyond their release date when ICE has reason to believe that an individual is subject to removal from the United States. These requests are nonbinding and not issued by a judge.
Menlo Park adopted an ordinance during Trump’s first term barring its police department from complying with those requests.
ICE argues that those requests give it time to assume custody of an individual who already has been convicted of a crime and should be removed from the United States By holding the individual, ICE believes it avoids “at-large” arrests, when ICE officials arrest an individual in the community, which it says can be dangerous for the individual, members of the public and law enforcement.
Some jurisdictions take it a step further and refuse to tell ICE if it is releasing an immigrant who can be removed, even if the individual has been convicted of a violent offense. Regardless of local statute, jurisdictions cannot legally obstruct federal law enforcement officials.
Editor’s note: This version changes to reflect that local and federal policies sometimes conflict rather than the law governing immigration. The story was also updated after DHS removed the list from its website.
Redwood City attorney sues ‘First Amendment auditors’ after Menlo Park disputeApril 2, 2026 11:31 am
