8 U.S.C. § 1373
Communication between government agencies and the Immigration and Naturalization Service
Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal, State, or local law, a Federal, State, or local government entity or official may not prohibit, or in any way restrict, any government entity or official from sending to, or receiving from, the Immigration and Naturalization Service information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.
The Immigration and Naturalization Service shall respond to an inquiry by a Federal, State, or local government agency, seeking to verify or ascertain the citizenship or immigration status of any individual within the jurisdiction of the agency for any purpose authorized by law, by providing the requested verification or status information.
Section was enacted as part of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996, and also as part of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act, 1997, and not as part of the Immigration and Nationality Act which comprises this chapter.
For abolition of Immigration and Naturalization Service, transfer of functions, and treatment of related references, see note set out under section 1551 of this title.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 112
cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1999–2026 · leading case: United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011).
United States v. Arizona, 641 F.3d 339 (9th Cir. 2011). “Arizona argues that in another INA provision, "Congress has expressed a clear intent to encourage the assistance from state and local law enforcement officers," citing 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (c). Section 1373(c) creates an obligation, on the part of the Department of Homeland Security…”
Villas at Parkside Partners v. City of Farmers Branch, 726 F.3d 524 (5th Cir. 2013). “The City argues that the Ordinance is consistent with federal immigration law because under the classification and enforcement system envisioned by the Ordinance, City officials making determinations of “lawful presence” are to rely on federal agents’ responses to queries…”
Chamber of Com. of United States of Am. v. Whiting, 131 S. Ct. 1968 (2011). “Under the Arizona law, if an individual files a complaint alleging that an employer has hired an unauthorized alien, the attorney general or the county attorney first verifies the employee’s work authorization with the Fed eral Government pursuant to 8 U. S. C. §1373 (c). Ariz.…”
City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. William Barr, 965 F.3d 753 (9th Cir. 2020). “The panel affirmed the district court’s order to the extent it held that DOJ did not have statutory authority to impose the Access and Notice Conditions and declared that plaintiffs’ respective sanctuary laws complied with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 , the law on which the Certification…”
City & Cnty. of San Francisco v. Donald Trump, 897 F.3d 1225 (9th Cir. 2018). “The Executive Order cross-references 8 U.S.C. § 1373 , which prohibits government entities from themselves prohibiting the sharing of “information regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of any individual.”
State v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 343 F. Supp. 3d 213 (S.D. Ill. 2018). “4 The third condition requires grantees to certify their compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 , which prohibits states and localities from restricting their officials from communicating with immigration authorities regarding anyone's citizenship or immigration status (the "Compliance…”
City of Phila. v. Sessions, 309 F. Supp. 3d 289 (E.D. Pa. 2018). “The City must certify compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 , a statute which purports to prohibit the City from restrictions on disclosure of information as to the citizenship or immigration status of any "person.”
Steinle v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 230 F. Supp. 3d 994 (N.D. Cal. 2017). “According to Plaintiffs, such actions were outside the scope of the City Defendants’ discretion because they violated state and federal law, specifically 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (a), section 11369 of the California Health and Safety Code, and section 7282.”
City of Philadelphia v. Sessions, 280 F. Supp. 3d 579 (E.D. Pa. 2017). “inmate about whom DHS has requested such information (the 48 hour “Notice Condition”); and 3) certifying compliance with 8 U.S.C. § 1373 (“Certification Condition”; collectively, the “Challenged Conditions”).”
City of Phila. v. Sessions, 309 F. Supp. 3d 271 (E.D. Pa. 2018). “condition JAG Program funds on 1) requiring federal immigration agents access to City detention facilities (the "Access Condition"); 2) providing the Department of Homeland Security ("DHS") at least 48 hours' advance notice of the date and time of the release of any inmate about…”
James Steinle v. City & Cnty. of S.F., 919 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir. 2019). “Specifically, the panel held that although 8 U.S.C. §§ 1373 (a) and 1644 prohibit restrictions on providing certain types of information to ICE, they plainly and unambiguously do not prohibit the restriction at issue in this case regarding release- date information.”
City & Cnty. of S.F. v. Sessions, 349 F. Supp. 3d 924 (N.D. Cal. 2018). “The conditions require that grant recipients (i) provide the Department of Homeland Security's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency ("ICE") access to their correctional facilities for immigration enforcement purposes, (ii) provide notice to ICE of the release date for…”
— 8 U.S.C. § 1373(a) — 1 case
League of Women Voters v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (D.D.C. 2026).
— 8 U.S.C. § 1373(c) — 1 case
League of Women Voters v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec. (D.D.C. 2026).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.