REP. NANCY MACE PROPOSES SOUTH CAROLINA IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT ACT
Proposal would hold sanctuary sheriffs accountable with criminal penalties, removal from office; modeled on Texas law upheld by federal courts
Representative Nancy Mace today proposed the South Carolina Immigration Enforcement Act, legislation that would impose penalties on sheriffs and jail administrators who refuse to honor federal immigration detainer requests. The bill is modeled on Texas SB 4, which was upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018.
“South Carolina already bans sanctuary cities on paper. This bill puts teeth behind that ban,” said Rep. Mace. “If a sheriff releases a criminal illegal alien back onto our streets because they refuse to work with ICE, they should face the consequences, including removal from office.”
Under current South Carolina law, political subdivisions are prohibited from adopting sanctuary policies, but lacks enforcement. The State Law Enforcement Division has never found a single jurisdiction out of compliance, even as some have refused dozens of ICE detainer requests and been designated “non-cooperative” by federal immigration authorities.
The South Carolina Immigration Enforcement Act would:
• Require jails to honor ICE detainer requests and notify ICE 48 hours before releasing detainees
• Create a misdemeanor offense for those who knowingly refuse to comply, punishable by up to one year in jail and a $1,000 fine
• Trigger automatic removal from office upon conviction
• Impose civil penalties of up to $25,000 per day on noncompliant jurisdictions
• Cut off Local Government Fund appropriations for three years to jurisdictions that violate the law
• Allow any citizen to file a complaint with the Attorney General
BUILT TO WITHSTAND LEGAL CHALLENGES
The legislation was drafted to address anticipated Constitutional challenges that have been raised against similar laws in other states:
Anti-Commandeering Doctrine: The Supreme Court’s ruling in Printz v. United States (1997) held that the federal government cannot compel state officers to enforce federal law. However, this bill is a state law requiring state officers to cooperate with federal authorities, not a federal mandate. States have broad authority to direct their own employees. The Fifth Circuit upheld Texas SB 4 on precisely this basis, finding that a state choosing to require its officers to cooperate with ICE does not violate anti-commandeering principles.
Fourth Amendment Concerns: Some courts have found that holding individuals solely on an ICE detainer, which is an administrative request, not a judicial warrant, may violate the Fourth Amendment. This bill addresses that concern by including an explicit exception: if the detainee provides proof of U.S. citizenship or lawful immigration status (driver’s license, passport, or federal documentation), the detainer compliance requirement does not apply. This mirrors the Texas model that survived court challenge.
Due Process / Removal from Office: The bill’s removal provision is grounded in existing South Carolina constitutional and statutory authority. Article VI, Section 8 of the South Carolina Constitution provides that any officer convicted of a “crime involving moral turpitude” may be suspended by the Governor and, upon conviction, the position “shall be declared vacant.” The bill explicitly designates a violation as official misconduct under S.C. Code §8-1-80, which already provides for removal upon conviction. This is not a novel mechanism, it leverages existing state law.
First Amendment / Criminalizing Speech: Unlike Tennessee’s recent legislation which criminalizes voting for sanctuary policies, this bill criminalizes only the act of knowingly refusing to comply with a detainer, not speech, advocacy, or voting. This avoids First Amendment concerns that could arise from punishing officials for their policy positions rather than their conduct.
Indemnification / Liability Shield: The bill includes a state indemnification provision protecting law enforcement agencies and officers from civil liability when they comply with detainer requests in good faith. This removes a key excuse some sheriffs have cited for non-cooperation, fear of lawsuits, while ensuring officers are protected when following state law.
“We studied what worked in Texas and what’s being challenged elsewhere,” Rep. Mace said. “This bill is designed to hold up in court. It uses existing South Carolina constitutional provisions, follows the Texas model the Fifth Circuit already blessed, and avoids the First Amendment problems in Tennessee’s approach.”
Mace previously led congressional oversight efforts investigating South Carolina Sanctuary Sheriff Kristin Graziano who refused to cooperate with ICE. Subsequently, Graziano released many violent, criminal illegal aliens onto the streets of South Carolina from 2021 to 2024 when voters elected a new sheriff due to this issue.
The number of 287(g) agreements in South Carolina has grown from 3 to 20 counties since January 2025, along with the State Law Enforcement Division and three municipalities.
“Our sheriffs who are doing it right deserve recognition. Any one who isn’t should be held accountable. This bill does both, and it’s built to last. There will never be another sanctuary sheriff in South Carolina if I’m in charge.”
###
