Opponents of (and sometimes advocates for) sanctuary policies typically describe such measures as obstructions to the operation of federal immigration law. This Article posits that this premise is faulty. Rather, on the better view, the sanctuary movement comports with, rather than fights against, dominant new themes in federal immigration law. A key theme – emerging both in judicial doctrine and on-the-ground practice – focuses on maintaining legitimacy by fostering adherence to equitable norms in decision-making processes. Against this backdrop, the sanctuary efforts of cities, churches, and campuses are best seen as the latest development in a significant transition occurring in immigration enforcement over the past two decades. That transition has centered on a shift forward in responsibility for equitable decision-making in deportation cases, away from adjudicators charged with handling formal proceedings and toward federal agents deciding whom to target for removal and how to process them. As federal immigration enforcement practices themselves have calcified, abandoning equitable individuation in favor of mass and indiscriminate removal, the locus of discretion has moved even further upstream, relocating key discretionary authority in local police officers, state prosecutors, and other non-federal actors in local communities. These actors inject normative and legal accuracy into real-world immigration enforcement decision-making by providing front-line equitable screens and last-resort circuit breakers in the administration of federal deportation law. The dynamics are messy and contested, and the results incomplete, but these efforts in the long run will help ensure the vindication of legally salient, equity-based legitimacy norms in immigration enforcement.

KJ