Next Act’s Sanctuary City Highlights Immigrants’ Fear of Deportation

(BALTIMORE COUNTY, MD, USA) With immigrant families on edge and local leaders weighing their next steps, the U.S. Department of Justice’s latest DOJ designation of “sanctuary jurisdictions” has narrowed sharply, putting Baltimore County among just four counties flagged nationwide. On August 5, 2025, DOJ updated its list, shrinking it from more than 400 counties in 2024 to only four in 2025: Baltimore County (MD), Cook County (IL), San Diego County (CA), and San Francisco County (CA).

The Attorney General sent notices on August 13, 2025, asking the named jurisdictions to respond by August 19, 2025 about their compliance with federal law and whether they plan to roll back policies seen as impeding federal immigration enforcement.

The update arrives as the theater world spotlights daily realities for mixed-status families. Next Act’s new production of “Sanctuary City” dramatizes fear of deportation—fear that advocates say rises when federal pressure mounts and rumors of raids move quickly online. Community groups in the United States 🇺🇸 report more parents keeping children home, workers skipping clinics, and victims staying silent after crimes—patterns that local police chiefs have warned can harm public safety.

DOJ designation narrows to four counties

The narrowed list marks a sharp turn in federal focus. According to DOJ notices described by local officials, the department is scrutinizing policies that:

• limit information sharing with federal agencies,
• restrict local jail holds for civil immigration matters, or
• set rules that curb cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

DOJ’s stated position is that such rules obstruct federal law. The department’s public pages provide general background on its role and authorities; more information is available at the U.S. Department of Justice.

On the ground, sanctuary policies vary widely. Many local rules state that police won’t hold someone past their release time for a civil immigration request without a judicial warrant, or that officers won’t ask about status during routine stops. Cities often describe these steps as basic limits that protect due process and build trust.

Research cited by policy groups indicates these limits do not raise crime. Multiple studies show no link between sanctuary rules and higher offense rates; some report decreases in certain crimes and modest gains in median household income and employment in sanctuary areas. Courts have repeatedly backed the right of local governments to set such policies. In April 2025, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction blocking efforts to cut funding to sanctuary jurisdictions, citing constitutional concerns and the need to preserve public trust.

Still, federal and state pressure is intense. The Trump administration, in its second term, has targeted Sanctuary City policies across the country. Officials have criticized hospitals, churches, and schools that limit cooperation, arguing that such policies shield people with criminal records. Several states—including New Hampshire, Utah, Florida, and Texas—have passed laws banning sanctuary measures or mandating cooperation with ICE.

Legal fights and community impact

Sanctuary rules have grown over the past decade and a half, expanding from roughly 40 jurisdictions in 2009 to more than 600 by 2025. Local leaders often say the aim is simple: protect community safety by encouraging all residents to report crimes and use services without fear.

That goal sits at the heart of “Sanctuary City,” which shows how fear of deportation shapes everyday choices—from calling the police to seeking medical care.

Court rulings generally favor local autonomy. Judges have pointed to the Tenth Amendment to bar the federal government from forcing states or cities to carry out federal programs. Attempts to condition broad federal grants on sanctuary status have found limited traction in court, and recent orders have kept funding in place while lawsuits continue.

Key perspectives:
– Local governments argue sanctuary measures are constitutional, focused on public safety, and essential to community trust.
– Immigration advocacy groups say the policies protect civil rights and public health.
– Opponents claim the rules undermine federal law and may let people with criminal records avoid detection.

Policy outcomes differ sharply by state. Where state law bans sanctuary policies, local agencies often must:

• honor ICE detainers,
• share information broadly, and
• notify federal authorities about release dates—even for minor offenses.

Advocates warn this increases deportation risk for long-term residents with traffic or low-level cases.

In contrast, jurisdictions with sanctuary rules often:

• issue municipal IDs,
• expand access to driver’s licenses, and
• set clear limits on civil immigration holds.

Community groups say these steps reduce fear and help people work, drive, and access schools and clinics.

The political tug-of-war

The political story is complex and shifts with administrations.

• During President Biden’s tenure, the administration backed community-focused approaches and supported sanctuary jurisdictions in court.
• Under President Trump, the White House and DOJ have pressed for maximum cooperation with ICE and used the DOJ designation list to challenge local policies.

According to analysis by VisaVerge.com, federal messaging—combined with state bans—has pushed some cities to revise local ordinances, while others have doubled down and litigated.

For immigrants living in the four named counties, immediate practical questions include:

1. Will local police change arrest and booking practices?
2. Will jails start holding people longer for ICE?
3. Will county agencies share more data?

So far, answers depend on how each county responds to the August 13 notice and any follow-on actions. Local officials in sanctuary jurisdictions often emphasize that their rules align with constitutional limits and that trust with witnesses and victims is central to solving crimes.

Public misinformation adds another layer. Community leaders say false posts about “citywide raids” or “papers checkpoints” spread quickly, keeping families indoors and away from help.

Legal service providers recommend simple steps:
– Know your rights.
– Keep emergency phone numbers handy.
– Seek verified updates from trusted local offices or nonprofit groups.

“Sanctuary City” the play ties these policy threads to a human story—two young people weighing love, friendship, and the risk of deportation. Its release during peak debate underscores how policy choices land in living rooms and classrooms, not just courtrooms.

Audiences see, in real time, what it means to weigh a police call after a break-in or to avoid a clinic when a child is sick.

What’s next

As the August 19, 2025 response deadline passes, attention will turn to:

• whether DOJ escalates enforcement,
• whether counties modify local rules, or
• whether courts again step in.

Legislative proposals like the “No Bailouts for Sanctuary Cities Act” and the “Laken Riley Act” signal possible new constraints, though additional lawsuits are expected. Advocates plan to continue pressing data-based arguments on crime and health, while opponents will push accountability narratives focused on federal supremacy.

For now, the four counties on the list sit at the center of a national test: how to balance federal immigration enforcement priorities with local control and community safety. The outcome will shape how officers patrol, how families seek help, and how schools, clinics, and churches serve mixed-status neighborhoods. It will also influence whether fear—the kind portrayed on stage—fades or deepens in the coming months.