Did the City of Fayetteville adopt a sanctuary policy by saying 'the city does not assist ICE,' and what does that mean for state funding?

Plain-English summary

In June 2025, ICE was present at a traffic stop on I-49 near Exit 64 in Fayetteville. The Fayetteville Police Department had assisted Arkansas State Police on the stop but did not directly participate in any immigration action. After the stop drew public attention, the city issued a media release. In the release, the police department said it "does not participate in civil immigration enforcement violations." Mayor Molly Rawn added: "I want to reaffirm clearly: The City of Fayetteville does not assist ICE in carrying out its agenda."

Representative Kendon Underwood asked the AG whether that public statement amounted to a "sanctuary policy" prohibited by A.C.A. § 14-1-103. The AG said yes.

The AG's analysis turned on three points. First, the media release was not just a one-off public statement, it was written evidence of a pre-existing policy. The release described the policy as the department's standing posture and said the mayor was "reiterating" and "reaffirming" what the city already did. That language is the city telling the public, in writing, that this is how its police operate.

Second, the substance of the policy hits three of the six prohibited categories in section 14-1-103(b)(2). It (a) limits cooperation with federal immigration agencies on verifying or reporting immigration status, (b) restricts compliance with ICE detainer requests, and (c) prevents officers from asking about citizenship or immigration status. The AG rejected the city's apparent argument that a policy must be a verbatim contradiction of one of the listed categories to violate the statute. Policies that "hinder or prevent" the listed cooperation are enough.

Third, the policy is still in effect. The AG asked twice for any documents or memoranda showing the city had repealed or carved exceptions into the policy. The city responded that it had no policies "even relevant" to section 14-1-103. The AG treated that response as evidence that the policy stands.

The consequence under section 14-1-103(c)(2) is that Fayetteville is ineligible to receive discretionary state funds. That ineligibility lifts only when the AG certifies that the policy has been repealed or amended, which requires the city to come forward with evidence of the change.

What this means for you

If you are a Fayetteville official or city attorney

Two paths forward, both inside the statute. Path one: amend the underlying policy so officers may communicate with federal agencies on immigration status when asked, comply with valid ICE detainers, and inquire about citizenship in the course of their duties. Then submit the amended policy to the AG. Path two: leave the policy in place but document specific exceptions that allow employees to comply with section 14-1-103 when statutory cooperation is required, and submit those carve-outs.

If neither path is acceptable, the city is choosing the consequence: ineligibility for discretionary state funds until policy or law changes. That is a budgeting decision, not a legal mystery.

If you run a city or county elsewhere in Arkansas

The opinion clarifies that informal policies count. A mayor's media release, a chief's stated practice, or a routine departmental posture can all qualify as a "policy" under section 14-1-103, even without a formal ordinance or written manual. Audit your public statements and your department's day-to-day patterns. If your statements describe noncooperation with ICE in any of the six prohibited ways, the AG can find that you have a sanctuary policy regardless of whether you ever passed an ordinance.

If you are a state legislator concerned about a specific city

Section 14-1-103(d)(1) gives any member of the General Assembly standing to ask the AG to review a city or county before discretionary state funds are awarded. The opinion process is fact-specific. The AG sends a letter to the city attorney asking for "any orders, ordinances, resolutions, policies, including formal or informal practices, training materials, emails, or memoranda" relating to the prohibited subjects. The city's response, or non-response, becomes part of the record.

If you are a state grant administrator

The opinion is operative immediately as to discretionary funding the state administers. Until the AG certifies repeal or amendment, do not award discretionary moneys to Fayetteville. Mandatory or formula-based funds outside the discretionary category may be a different question, but discretionary grants are the clear target of the statute.

If you are an immigration policy advocate or affected resident

The opinion is appealable in the practical sense: the city can submit new evidence to the AG, who will then issue a follow-on opinion either certifying the policy is no longer in effect or maintaining the current finding. The opinion does not address state-court challenges to the underlying statute or to the AG's reading; that would be a separate vehicle.

Common questions

What does section 14-1-103 actually prohibit?
The statute lists six categories of "sanctuary policy." The three the AG found Fayetteville violated:
- 14-1-103(b)(2)(A): policies that limit or prohibit cooperation with federal agencies to verify or report immigration status.
- 14-1-103(b)(2)(D): policies that restrict or impose conditions on compliance with ICE detainers or other ICE custody-transfer requests.
- 14-1-103(b)(2)(F): policies that prevent law enforcement officers from asking about citizenship or immigration status.

There are three more categories the AG did not need to reach because the first three were enough to support a finding.

Does a media release really count as a "policy"?
Yes, on these facts. The release described the city's "position," the mayor used the words "reaffirm" and "reiterate," and the substance was articulated as how the police department actually operates. The AG read those signals as evidence of an existing policy, not just political messaging. The lesson for cities is that what a mayor says in writing can be policy for section 14-1-103 purposes, even without an ordinance.

The city said it had no policies that violate the statute. Why didn't that end the matter?
Because the AG's review is based on what the records show, not on the city's legal conclusion. The city said it had no relevant policies; the AG looked at the mayor's release and read it as describing a relevant policy. The city's own characterization does not bind the AG.

Can a "policy" hinder cooperation without saying so directly?
Yes. The opinion explicitly rejects the argument that a policy must use the verbatim wording of one of the prohibited categories. A policy that says the city "does not assist ICE" hinders cooperation with ICE and that is enough.

What evidence would enable the funding again?
The AG identified two paths: (1) "the sanctuary policy is no longer current," meaning the city repealed or amended it; or (2) "exceptions have been made that would allow City employees to comply with the statute." The city has to submit such evidence, the AG reviews it, and the AG issues a follow-up opinion either certifying repeal or maintaining the finding.

Does this affect federal grants?
No. Section 14-1-103(c)(2) targets only "discretionary moneys provided through funds or grants administered by the state." Federal grants run on their own conditions.

What happens if Fayetteville disagrees with the AG's reading?
The AG opinion is persuasive authority, not a self-executing court order. The practical consequence (loss of discretionary state funding) flows from the statute. If the city wanted to challenge that consequence, the route would be through litigation against whichever state agency is denying funds, with the city arguing that the AG's reading misapplied section 14-1-103. The AG's opinion would be a key document in that case but would not control.

Background and statutory framework

Section 14-1-103. Arkansas's anti-sanctuary statute prohibits local governments from enacting or adopting "sanctuary policies" and lists six categories of policies that qualify. The categories are not symmetrical: some restrict cooperation, some restrict information sharing, some restrict specific operational steps like asking about immigration status.

Standing for review. Two paths trigger the AG's review process. Section 14-1-103(c)(1) lets any state resident file a complaint. Section 14-1-103(d)(1) lets a member of the General Assembly request review "before the provision of funds or the award of grants" to a particular local government. Representative Underwood used the legislator path here, but the analytical framework is identical.

The four-element test for finding a violation. The AG identified four elements: (1) standing of the requester (resident or legislator); (2) the conduct must be an "order, ordinance, or law enforcement policy"; (3) the policy must fall within one of the six categories in (b)(2); and (4) the policy must be "current and in effect."

Element two and informal policy. Element two is what made Fayetteville unusual. The city had no ordinance. The AG found that the mayor's written media release, when it expressly describes how the police department operates and "reiterates" or "reaffirms" the city's existing posture, constitutes a "law enforcement policy" within element two. Cities cannot avoid section 14-1-103 by keeping their position out of the formal ordinance book.

Element four and the burden of proof. The AG asked Fayetteville for documentation of any policy revisions or carve-outs. The city said no such documents existed and that it had no relevant policies at all. The AG treated that as evidence the policy remained in place. Cities seeking to defeat element four need affirmative documentation, not denials.

The funding consequence. Section 14-1-103(c)(2) makes a city ineligible to receive discretionary state moneys "until the Attorney General certifies that the sanctuary policy is repealed or no longer in effect." There is no time limit on this consequence; it persists until the city changes course and the AG agrees.

Citations

Statutes:
- A.C.A. § 14-1-103 (anti-sanctuary statute, in full)
- A.C.A. § 14-1-103(a)(1) (prohibition on enacting or adopting a sanctuary policy)
- A.C.A. § 14-1-103(a)(2) (definition referencing "is repealed or no longer in effect")
- A.C.A. § 14-1-103(b)(2) (definition of sanctuary policy with six categories)
- A.C.A. § 14-1-103(b)(2)(A) (limiting or prohibiting cooperation with federal agencies on immigration status)
- A.C.A. § 14-1-103(b)(2)(D) (restricting compliance with ICE detainers)
- A.C.A. § 14-1-103(b)(2)(F) (preventing officers from asking about citizenship or immigration status)
- A.C.A. § 14-1-103(c)(1) (resident standing to seek review)
- A.C.A. § 14-1-103(c)(2) (funding ineligibility consequence)
- A.C.A. § 14-1-103(d)(1) (legislator standing to seek review before funds are awarded)

Reference works:
- Black's Law Dictionary 368-69 (12th ed. 2024) (definition of "condition")

Source

• Landing page: https://arkansasag.gov/divisions/opinions-foia/attorney-general-opinions-search/

Original opinion text

Opinion No. 2025-048
September 17, 2025

The Honorable Kendon R. Underwood
State Representative
Post Office Box 446
Cave Springs, Arkansas 72718

Dear Representative Underwood:

You have requested an opinion from this Office on whether the City of Fayetteville, Arkansas has adopted a prohibited "sanctuary policy" under A.C.A. § 14-1-103. Your request is made both as a resident under A.C.A. § 14-1-103(c) and as a member of the General Assembly under A.C.A. § 14-1-103(d).

On June 27, 2025, my Office sent a letter to Fayetteville City Attorney Kit Williams requesting "copies of any City of Fayetteville ordinances and policies addressing the issues described in § 14-1-103(b)." The City Attorney responded on July 1, 2025, in writing with attached records. In that letter, the City Attorney stated that "the City of Fayetteville has no ordinance nor policies that violate A.C.A. 14-1-103(b)." (Emphasis added.) My Office sent a follow-up letter to the City Attorney on August 4, 2025, and reiterated a request for "any materials related to any of the issues described in § 14-1-103(b)." On August 5, 2025, the City Attorney replied, that "to the best of" his "knowledge and belief, any city ordinances, resolutions or policies, including formal or informal practices, training materials, emails, or memoranda related to any issues described in § 14-1-103(b)" had already been provided with his "earlier correspondence."

While I have been provided with copies of numerous documents, the most relevant one is a written statement by the mayor. The statement, which is attached to this opinion as Exhibit 1, was published on June 17, 2025. The statement indicated that "FPD does not participate in civil immigration enforcement violations." And the mayor "reiterated the city's position," stating, "I want to reaffirm clearly: The City of Fayetteville does not assist ICE in carrying out its agenda. Our police department's role is to keep our community safe, not to act as agents of immigration enforcement."

RESPONSE

As explained more fully below, it is my opinion that the mayor's written statement, by its own terms, (1) reflects a preexisting policy and (2) that policy violates A.C.A. § 14-1-103. Thus, it is a "sanctuary policy," which means that, under A.C.A. § 14-1-103(c)(2), the City is not eligible to receive discretionary funding administered by the state. The City may submit evidence demonstrating that the sanctuary policy is no longer current or that exceptions have been made that would allow City employees to comply with the statute. If that evidence is submitted, the City will be eligible to receive the discretionary funds again.

DISCUSSION

1. General rules. Under A.C.A. § 14-1-103, a local government cannot "enact or adopt a sanctuary policy." A policy is considered a prohibited "sanctuary policy" if it promulgates or reflects any one of a list of prohibited actions. For purposes of this opinion, the most relevant prohibited actions are policies that:

• "Limit[] or prohibit[] a local government official or person employed by the local government from communicating or cooperating with federal agencies or officials to verify or report the immigration status of a person within the local government";
• "Restrict[] or impose[] any conditions upon the local government's cooperation or compliance with detainers or other requests from United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement to maintain custody of an immigrant or to transfer an immigrant to the custody of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement"; or
• "Prevent[] law enforcement officers from asking a person about his or her citizenship or immigration status."

When this Office receives a complaint that a local government has adopted a formal or informal sanctuary policy, it must review and issue an opinion on whether such an unlawful policy exists under A.C.A. § 14-1-103.

If the Attorney General finds that a local government "has enacted or adopted a sanctuary policy," that local government will be "ineligible to receive discretionary moneys provided through funds or grants administered by the state until the Attorney General certifies that the sanctuary policy is repealed or no longer in effect." Legislators may ask for an opinion under A.C.A. § 14-1-103(d)(1) "[b]efore the provision of funds or the award of grants" is even made to the local government.

In order for the Attorney General to determine that a city does in fact have an unlawful sanctuary policy under A.C.A. § 14-1-103, four elements must be met:

• First, the person seeking the Attorney General's review must be an Arkansas resident, legislator, or both.
• Second, the information or record must be an "order, ordinance, or law enforcement policy."
• Third, the information or record must meet one of the six categories listed under A.C.A. § 14-1-103(b)(2)(A)-(F).
• Fourth, the order, ordinance, or law enforcement policy that meets one of the six categories under A.C.A. § 14-1-103(b)(2)(A)-(F) must also be current and in effect.

Since the first element is clearly met here, I will restrict my analysis to the remaining three.

2. Element two. The media release is written evidence of a pre-existing law-enforcement policy. The media release expressly describes a policy of the Fayetteville Police Department when the release says that the "FPD does not participate in civil immigration enforcement violations." The release goes further, stating that the release's content and the mayor's statement "reiterate[] the city's position" and "reaffirm clearly" the city's policy regarding immigration.

3. Element three. For the purposes of my review under A.C.A. § 14-1-103, the City of Fayetteville's orders and law enforcement policy may violate A.C.A. § 14-1-103 in six distinct ways. For the reasons discussed below, it is my opinion that the "Media Release," reflects a pre-existing prohibited sanctuary policy under A.C.A. § 14-1-103(b)(2)(A), -103(b)(2)(D), and -103(b)(2)(F).

3.1. Limiting or prohibiting cooperation. A policy is a prohibited sanctuary policy if it "[l]imits or prohibit[s] a local government official or person employed by the local government from communicating or cooperating with federal agencies or officials to verify or report the immigration status of a person within the local government." The mayor's media release expressly states that the City has a policy of "not participat[ing] in civil immigration enforcement violations" and that the "City of Fayetteville does not assist ICE…." A declaration that the City does not "participate in civil immigration enforcement violations" and "does not assist ICE" indicates that the City "limit[] or prohibit[s]" its employees from "cooperating with federal agencies … to verify or report the immigration status" of someone within the City. This is a clear violation of the statute.

Further, the media release makes clear that the policy predated the release. The release made clear that it was merely "reiterat[ing] the city's position" regarding immigration. And the mayor herself said she wanted to "reaffirm clearly" what that position was. So for some, currently unknown, amount of time before the media release, the City had a policy under which they did not communicate or cooperate with federal agencies regarding someone's immigration status.

Thus, the mayor's statement reflects a pre-existing policy that violates A.C.A. § 14-1-103(b)(2)(A).

3.2. Detainer requests. Subdivision -103(b)(2)(D) prohibits any policy that "[r]estricts or imposes any conditions upon the local government's cooperation or compliance with detainers or other requests from United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement to maintain custody of an immigrant or to transfer an immigrant to the custody of United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement." For similar reasons as those discussed in Subsection 3.1 of this opinion, the mayor's statement violates this subdivision. The statement that the "City of Fayetteville does not assist ICE" and does not "participate in civil immigration enforcement violations" broadly encompasses any act by the city or its staff that helps or facilitates ICE operations, such as cooperating and complying with detainers or other requests from ICE. The refusal to "assist ICE" imposes conditions upon which the City of Fayetteville cooperates and complies with detainers or other requests from ICE. Thus, the mayor's media release reflects a pre-existing policy that violates A.C.A. § 14-1-103(b)(2)(D).

3.3. Asking about immigration status. Subdivision -103(b)(2)(F) prohibits any policy that "[p]revents law enforcement officers from asking a person about his or her citizenship or immigration status." The mayor's statement expressly indicates that, at least as it pertains to "civil immigration" violations, the City has a policy under which they do not "participate" in any "civil immigration enforcement violations." That broad policy prevents law enforcement officers from asking about someone's "citizenship or immigration status." Therefore, the pre-existing policy evinced by the mayor's media release violates A.C.A. § 14-1-103(b)(2)(F).

The City appears to believe that, as long as it does not promulgate a policy that is the verbatim contradiction of one of the subdivision in A.C.A. § 14-1-103(b)(2), then the City cannot be in violation of the statute. Not so. Instead, the statute prohibits policies that hinder or prevent the actions described above. Since the mayor's media release reflects such a policy, that is sufficient to establish a violation of this statute.

4. Element four. Subdivision -103(c)(2) requires me to determine whether the sanctuary policy "is repealed or no longer in effect." If so, then the City is no longer in violation of the statute. If not, then the City is not eligible to receive the discretionary moneys.

I have exchanged four letters with the City (two sent, and two received), seeking information on the City's existing policies that are relevant to A.C.A. § 14-1-103. The City believes that not only does it lack any policies that violate § 14-1-103, but the City does not have any policies that are even relevant to the statute. Based on the information articulated above, that belief is mistaken. Therefore, based on the information currently available to me, it is my opinion that the City's policy is still current and effective.

If the City of Fayetteville clearly indicates that its pre-existing policy has been amended or contains exceptions that permit the City's employees to comply with the law, then that will be sufficient to conclude that the sanctuary policy in question is not current or effective. Based on what records I receive, I will then issue an opinion and either certify or not certify that the policy has been repealed or is no longer effective. But until I receive evidence that the policy is not currently in effect, the City of Fayetteville will not be eligible to receive discretionary funding administered by the state.

Sincerely,
TIM GRIFFIN
Attorney General

Exhibit 1 (Media Release):
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
City of Fayetteville Responds to ICE Presence During State-Led Stop
FAYETTEVILLE, Ark. — The City of Fayetteville is providing the following clarification after questions arose regarding law enforcement activity involving U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) earlier today.

The Fayetteville Police Department has not been contacted by ICE or any other federal, state, or local agency regarding any immigration enforcement operations in our city.

At approximately 9:03 a.m., FPD received a request for assistance from Arkansas State Police related to a traffic stop near I-49 and Exit 64. A Fayetteville Police sergeant responded to the scene and observed both Arkansas State Police and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) personnel present.

FPD had no further involvement in the investigation and left the scene. FPD does not participate in civil immigration enforcement violations.

Mayor Molly Rawn reiterated the city's position, stating:
"I want to reaffirm clearly: The City of Fayetteville does not assist ICE in carrying out its agenda. Our police department's role is to keep our community safe, not to act as agents of immigration enforcement."