- The Justice Department said states receiving TANF or SSI funds must report unlawfully present people to Homeland Security.
- The opinion extends the duty across the entire state government, including agencies beyond benefits offices.
- States face loss of program funding going forward, but the opinion applies prospectively and avoids retroactive penalties.
The Department of Justice issued a September 1, 2026 opinion requiring states that accept TANF or SSI funds to report people known to be unlawfully present to the Department of Homeland Security. The states risk losing program funding if they do not comply.
The directive reaches every agency within a participating state government, not only the offices that administer the benefits. Universities and departments of motor vehicles could fall within the reporting structure if they know a person is unlawfully present.
Free toolUSCIS Receipt Number Decoder
The opinion applies prospectively. States will not face retroactive penalties for relying on earlier federal guidance.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Joshua Craddock authored the opinion. He said the interpretation restores the statute’s original meaning rather than creating a new duty.
“Our clarification does not impose new obligations on states. It simply restores the original meaning of the statute Congress enacted and ensures that DHS receives the information it is legally entitled to.”
Assistant Attorney General T. Elliot Gaiser described the statutory language more directly.
“Congress wrote this requirement plainly.”
States would report names, addresses and status information on a recurring schedule
The opinion describes what participating states must provide and when they must provide it. The reporting obligation concerns people known to be not lawfully present.
| Reporting element | Requirement described in the opinion |
|---|---|
| Information | Names, addresses and other identifying information |
| Regular schedule | At least four times per year |
| Additional requests | Whenever federal immigration authorities request the information |
| Possible source of knowledge | DHS notice, an admission by the person, or records showing lawful status has expired |
| Final removal order | A final deportation order is not always necessary |
A state agency may receive notice from DHS. A person’s admission may also establish knowledge. Records showing that lawful status has expired can provide another basis under the interpretation.
The opinion does not require a final deportation order in every case. The reporting duty can arise from agency records or federal notice.
The interpretation now treats the whole state government as the reporting entity
The opinion withdraws a 1998 Clinton-era Office of Legal Counsel opinion. That guidance had limited the duty to state agencies administering TANF or SSI.
The new reading applies the term “State” in the 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act to the entire state government. That includes component agencies outside the benefits offices.
The change expands the number of state entities that may need procedures for identifying and transmitting covered information. It also shifts the issue from a narrow benefits-administration question to a government-wide compliance obligation.
The new reading is broader. Its practical effect extends across participating state administrations.
Future grants face pressure, while past funding remains outside the penalty
The opinion says noncompliance may lead to the loss of program funding. The potential exposure includes future federal support.
Federal TANF grants total more than $16.4 billion annually. The funding threat therefore reaches a large federal grant program, even though the opinion does not impose retroactive penalties.
Money already allocated would not be clawed back. States instead face consequences for conduct after the new interpretation takes effect.
That prospective approach protects states from penalties based solely on their past reliance on the 1998 interpretation. It does not remove the obligation to comply going forward.
TANF and SSI put the reporting dispute inside state benefit systems
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families provides financial assistance and related support to low-income families. Supplemental Security Income provides monthly assistance to low-income elderly people and people with disabilities.
All 50 states, the District of Columbia and several U.S. territories participate in both programs. The opinion therefore reaches a broad group of state governments.
The benefits programs create the funding connection. A state’s decision to participate places its wider administrative structure within the interpretation’s reach.
The obligation extends beyond the offices handling monthly assistance or family support. Agencies that hold relevant records may also need to respond.
The opinion binds federal agencies but remains open to court challenges
The measure is an executive-branch legal interpretation, not a court ruling. It is binding on federal agencies.
That status gives the opinion force within the federal government without resolving how courts would assess the interpretation. The measure could face legal challenges.
The administration presented the directive as part of a broader immigration crackdown. Officials also said it would prevent welfare programs from supporting unlawful immigration.
The opinion gives federal agencies a basis for applying the reporting requirement across state governments. Litigation could test that interpretation, its reach and the funding consequence.
Gaiser connected grant participation with the reporting obligation. He said the federal money should reinforce immigration law and border enforcement.
“When a state chooses to participate in TANF, it accepts the obligation to report illegal aliens in the United States.”
He added:
“Tax dollars intended to help vulnerable Americans should not perversely encourage illegal entry into the United States, but rather should reinforce our laws and our borders.”
Craddock said states accepting the funds must follow federal law and warned that noncompliance could affect program funding.
“States that accept TANF funding must abide by federal law, and failure to comply may lead to serious consequences, including loss of program funding.”
This article provides general information and is not legal advice. Consult a qualified immigration attorney about your specific case.
