New Hampshire officially sides with ICE in new Anti-Sanctuary law

New law took effect Jan. 1

New Hampshire rang in 2026 with a first for the region.

On Jan. 1, the state’s anti-sanctuary city law officially kicked in, making it the first New England state to ban local policies that limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.

Gov. Kelly Ayotte, a Republican and former U.S. senator, signed the bill known as HB 511 and its companion bill SB 62 back on May 22, 2025.

Banning sanctuary cities was a core promise of Ayotte’s 2024 campaign for governor.

The law bars cities from blocking ICE

HB 511 stops cities and towns from adopting policies that block federal immigration enforcement.

It requires local and state law enforcement to comply with ICE detainers for inmates and bans blanket policies against that cooperation.

Police agencies also cannot withhold immigration-related information about people in custody from federal authorities. But the law cuts both ways.

Officers cannot investigate an inmate’s citizenship status unless that person is already under investigation for breaking a New Hampshire law.

Some protections stay in place

The law is not a blank check. It includes exceptions for people who have been victims of or witnesses to crimes.

Compliance with ICE detainers is only required “if safe to do so.”

And law enforcement cannot go out looking for someone’s immigration status on their own without a separate legal reason.

These guardrails were built into HB 511 to address concerns about overreach while still requiring cooperation with federal authorities.

Companion bill adds enforcement tools

SB 62 fills in the gaps. It prevents local governments from blocking police agencies from entering into voluntary agreements with ICE under the federal 287(g) program.

County jails can hold people subject to ICE detention orders for up to 48 hours after their state charges wrap up, not counting weekends and holidays.

If a law enforcement agency refuses to honor an ICE detainer, it must report that refusal to the state attorney general. The attorney general can then sue any jurisdiction that breaks the law.

Fines could hit 25% of state funding

The penalties carry real teeth. Municipalities that violate the law could lose up to 25% of the state funding they receive in the fiscal year the violation happened.

Courts that find a violation must order the sanctuary policy to stop.

The financial risk pushed several communities to change course before the Jan. 1 deadline, since even a mid-size town stood to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in state money.

No major city had sanctuary status

Here is the twist: no major New Hampshire city had officially declared itself a sanctuary city.

At the time the law passed, no New Hampshire jurisdiction appeared on the U.S. Department of Justice’s federal list of sanctuary jurisdictions.

But supporters of the law said they had found between nine and 12 communities with local policies that worked like sanctuary protections.

A handful of towns, including Lebanon and Hanover, had ordinances that limited police cooperation with federal immigration authorities.

Lebanon and Hanover changed course fast

Facing steep financial penalties, both towns acted before the deadline.

Lebanon’s city council voted 8-1 in November 2025 to repeal its Welcoming Ordinance, which had barred city workers from helping with immigration enforcement.

A violation could have cost Lebanon at least $500,000 in state funding.

Hanover’s Selectboard voted unanimously in December 2025 to revise its Fair and Impartial Policing Ordinance, first adopted in 2020. Legal counsel told Hanover that a court challenge to the state law would likely fail.

Civil liberties groups pushed back hard

The ACLU of New Hampshire opposed both bills, arguing they could weaken due process protections. The group pointed out that ICE detainers are not signed by a judge and skip the standard judicial process.

Immigrants’ rights advocates warned that forcing local police to work with ICE could scare immigrants away from reporting crimes or seeking help.

Groups including the Roman Catholic Church, the New Hampshire Association of Counties, and the New Hampshire Municipal Association also testified against the bills.

Democrats opposed both bills in the Senate

Senate Democrats voted against both bills along party lines.

Sen. Tara Reardon, a Concord Democrat, argued that the federal immigration crackdown under President Trump has “bypassed principles of fairness, due process, and human dignity.”

Some Democratic state representatives initially backed HB 511 in committee, but the bill split along partisan lines once it hit the Senate floor.

New Hampshire’s federal Democratic delegation stayed publicly silent when the laws took effect on Jan. 1.

New Hampshire stands alone in the region

The rest of New England looks very different. Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island all hold sanctuary state status according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

Maine has taken no official position. New Hampshire is the only New England state where Republicans control the state House, Senate, and governor’s office.

The only other New England police agency with a 287(g) task force agreement with ICE is the municipal department in Wells, Maine.

Twenty-three states now ban sanctuary policies

New Hampshire joins a growing list. It is now one of 23 states that have passed laws banning sanctuary policies.

Other states with similar bans include Texas, Florida, Tennessee, Arizona, and Georgia.

In August 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice published a formal list of sanctuary jurisdictions under a Trump executive order signed in April 2025.

The Trump administration has also filed lawsuits against cities in New York, California, Colorado, and New Jersey that it says interfere with immigration enforcement.

Tennessee went the furthest, creating criminal penalties for officials who adopt sanctuary policies.

Enforcement actions have not started yet

As of early 2026, the New Hampshire attorney general has not publicly announced any enforcement actions under the new law.

Several agencies have signed 287(g) agreements with ICE, including the state police and sheriff’s offices in Hillsborough, Rockingham, Belknap, and Grafton counties.

The law does not require police departments to enter into ICE agreements. It only prevents local governments from blocking those partnerships.

How it changes day-to-day policing in a state with a relatively small undocumented population is still an open question.

This article was created with AI assistance and human editing.

Read more from this brand:

• The New Hampshire town with a better UFO legend than Roswell (and way better fall foliage)
• Strawberry Banke: the town so stubborn, even Washington’s wrecking ball couldn’t bring it down
• If you grew up in New Hampshire, you’ll remember these classic summer spots instantly