
New
report shows sanctuary city policies still wrecking American life
Fairfax
County, Virginia is in the spotlight today, but the problem is embedded
throughout the U.S.
Wendi
Strauch Mahoney | July 8, 2026 www.americanthinker.com
America First Legal has been at the forefront of exposing sanctuary-style
policies that shield
illegal aliens at the expense of American citizens. Its latest
release of records expose Fairfax County, Virginia’s so-called Trust Policy
as a formal non-cooperation policy with ICE — one that has endangered the
public and, in some cases, carried deadly consequences. AFL has also documented
similar detainer refusal policies in Santa Clara County, California; Cook
County, Illinois; Denver, Colorado; and San Francisco,
California. Similar sanctuary-style policies also exist in New York
City, Chicago, Philadelphia, Denver, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, and Boston.
America First Legal recently released records it obtained from the Fairfax
County Sheriff’s Office showing that in 2025, Fairfax County refused to
transfer 448 illegal aliens who had already been arrested by police and
transferred only nine to ICE custody through criminal or judicial
warrants. From January through April 2026, Fairfax declined to
transfer another 167 to ICE and transferred only two. Across those
16 months, Fairfax declined transfer in 615 out of 626 cases — about 98
percent.
The chart below summarizes AFL-obtained Fairfax
County Sheriff's Office ICE Detainers Data:
The policy at the center of the controversy is Fairfax County’s
Public
Trust and Confidentiality Policy, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in
2021. The policy is meant to “build trust” by ensuring that migrant
residents can access county benefits and services without fear that information
they share will be disclosed to federal immigration officials. But the
operative language extends to the enforcement of immigration policy, declaring
that “it is not an appropriate use of Fairfax resources to facilitate
enforcement of federal immigration law.” It goes on to clarify that
the county will comply with valid judicial warrants, subpoenas, and federal or
state laws and regulations
mandating
cooperation but will otherwise restrict information-sharing that could be
used for immigration enforcement.
The county’s Trust
Policy General Directives go farther, stating that they are designed to
“prohibit voluntary cooperation with federal civil immigration enforcement” and
to ensure that county employees do “not voluntarily cooperate” with enforcement
of federal civil immigration laws.
The Fairfax
Sheriff’s Office says the same thing in plainer language. Its
policy statement says the office will detain an individual who has a judicial
warrant authorizing arrest, including a judicial immigration warrant, but “will
not detain an individual based on an informal request or
detainer.” The Sheriff’s Office argues that ICE detainers are
requests, not judicial commands, and that holding inmates beyond their release
date without judicial authority raises constitutional concerns.
Unfortunately, these policies are typical, not outliers, in sanctuary
jurisdictions. The overarching theory behind many
of these policies is that local government should not help federal
immigration authorities unless forced to do so by a court order, judicial
warrant, subpoena, or mandatory law.
Fairfax is not alone. AFL’s public-records investigation has
exposed the same pattern in other sanctuary jurisdictions. AFL
reports that Santa Clara County, California, received 529 ICE
detainer requests from January 2025 through January 2026 and honored
none. Cook County, Illinois refused more than 410 detainers in
2025. Denver received 219 ICE detainer requests in 2025 and another
55 in the first three months of 2026. San Francisco denied 671
detainer requests in 2025 and another 196 in the first 61 days of
2026. Fairfax is simply the latest entry in what appears to be a
national pattern of organized non-cooperation.
To be clear, an ICE
detainer is not a request aimed at random individuals; it is a notice to
another law enforcement agency that DHS seeks custody of an alien already in
that agency’s custody for arrest and removal. Federal regulation
provides for temporary detention of up to 48 hours, excluding weekends and
holidays, so DHS can assume custody.
In practical terms, ICE is asking local authorities to hold someone already
arrested long enough for federal officers to take custody in a controlled
setting. When jurisdictions refuse, ICE must either risk allowing
the person to return to the community or attempt an at-large arrest
later. That means greater risk for federal officers, greater risk to
bystanders, and increased opportunities for repeat offenders to victimize
someone else.
The consequences of ignoring detainers can be catastrophic, as Fairfax saw
in the case
of Stephanie Minter. In February 2026, Minter, a 41-year-old
mother, was fatally stabbed at a Fairfax County bus stop, allegedly by Abdul
Jalloh. According to a February 28 Department of Homeland Security press
release, Jalloh entered the U.S. illegally in 2012, and ICE lodged a
detainer against him in 2020.
Jalloh’s criminal history includes “more than 30 arrests for charges of
rape, malicious wounding, assault, drug possession, identity theft,
trespassing, larceny, firing a weapon, contributing to the delinquency of a
minor, and pickpocketing.” ICE also said Jalloh was “granted a final
order of removal by a judge who found he could be removed to any country other
than Sierra Leone.” According to deputy assistant secretary Lauren
Bis, Jalloh’s alleged murder of Minter came “less than 24 hours before Governor
Spanberger’s demonization of ICE law enforcement.”
In a similar December 2025 case, Marvin Fernando Morales-Ortez, whom DHS
described as “a criminal illegal alien from El Salvador, allegedly “brutally
murdered a resident inside his home in Reston, Virginia, just ONE DAY after
sanctuary politicians REFUSED to honor the U.S. Immigration and Customs
Enforcement (ICE) arrest detainer and RELEASED
him from jail,” according to a December
19, 2025 DHS press release. According to DHS, Morales-Ortez was
a “serial criminal” with a history of arrests for “aggravated assault of a
police officer, larceny, and disorderly conduct.” DHS reported that
Morales-Ortez illegally entered the country on September 18, 2016 with his
mother. According to DHS, he was designated a “non-enforcement
priority” in 2022 when the Biden administration “dismissed his immigration
proceedings.”
Prosecutorial discretion in Fairfax may be compounding the issue, as
underscored by recent action from the Department of Justice. The
Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division recently
opened an investigation into Fairfax commonwealth’s attorney Steve
Descano’s plea bargaining, charging, and sentencing policies. DOJ
says it is investigating whether Descano’s office discriminated against U.S.
citizens by offering preferential treatment to illegal alien criminal
defendants. DOJ also emphasized that it has not “reached any
conclusions” in its May 6, 2026 letter
to Descano.
Fairfax County and other sanctuary jurisdictions should be able to fairly
adjudicate illegal alien cases without shielding arrested criminal aliens from
federal custody. They should also be able to comply with
constitutional constraints without treating ICE as the enemy.
The effect of non-cooperation is not without serious
consequences. It places citizens and federal officers at greater
risk by allowing removable aliens with criminal records and arrests to re-enter
the community. It also sends a troubling message to law-abiding
citizens; their safety is subordinate to an ideologically driven refusal to
enforce lawful immigration removal procedures. Couching these
policies in the language of “trust” is especially ironic. Such
language disingenuously conceals dangerous policies that deserve far more
public scrutiny.