Overview
This bill establishes a temporary geographic restriction on federal immigration enforcement activities during the 2026 FIFA World Cup. The legislation prohibits the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice from using any federal funds to conduct civil immigration enforcement operations within a one-mile radius of any World Cup match venue or Fan Festival location. The measure aims to create safe zones around these international sporting events, ensuring that attendees, participants, and visitors can access and enjoy the events without fear of immigration enforcement actions. This represents a targeted limitation on federal immigration authority tied to a specific international event hosted on U.S. soil.
Core Provisions
The bill's central provision creates a funding prohibition that prevents DHS and DOJ from expending any federal appropriations on civil immigration enforcement activities within the designated one-mile buffer zones. This restriction applies specifically to the 2026 FIFA World Cup matches and associated Fan Festivals, creating temporary enforcement-free zones around these venues. The prohibition encompasses all civil immigration enforcement activities, which would include arrests, detentions, investigations, and other enforcement actions typically conducted by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, and related agencies. The geographic scope is defined by a one-mile radius measured from the physical location of each match venue and Fan Festival site. The temporal scope is limited to the duration of the 2026 World Cup tournament and its associated events.
Key Points
- Prohibition on use of federal funds by DHS and DOJ for civil immigration enforcement within one-mile radius of World Cup venues
- Applies to all 2026 FIFA World Cup match locations and Fan Festival sites
- Covers all civil immigration enforcement activities without exception
- Creates temporary geographic safe zones during the tournament period
Implementation
Implementation responsibility falls jointly on the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of Justice, which must ensure compliance with the funding restriction across all their immigration enforcement components. Both departments will need to establish internal protocols to identify the precise geographic boundaries of the one-mile exclusion zones around each venue, coordinate with FIFA and local organizing committees to obtain venue locations and event schedules, and communicate these restrictions to field personnel. The agencies must develop operational guidelines that redirect enforcement resources away from the restricted areas while maintaining their broader immigration enforcement missions. No specific reporting requirements or oversight mechanisms are established in the bill, leaving enforcement of the restriction to internal agency compliance and potential congressional oversight. The lack of explicit funding mechanisms suggests this operates as a restriction on existing appropriations rather than requiring new budgetary allocations.
Impact
The primary beneficiaries of this legislation are individuals who may be present in the United States without legal authorization and who attend or work at World Cup events, as well as lawfully present foreign nationals who might otherwise avoid such events due to concerns about immigration enforcement presence. The bill creates a temporary safe harbor that allows these individuals to participate in the international sporting event without risk of civil immigration enforcement action. Secondary beneficiaries include event organizers, local businesses, and host cities that may see increased attendance and economic activity from populations that might otherwise avoid these areas. The administrative burden on DHS and DOJ includes the operational complexity of mapping exclusion zones, redeploying personnel, and potentially managing enforcement gaps in areas that may have ongoing immigration enforcement priorities. The restriction is inherently temporary, expiring upon conclusion of the 2026 World Cup tournament, though no explicit sunset date is specified in the bill text. Cost implications are difficult to quantify but may include both enforcement opportunity costs and potential administrative expenses for implementing the geographic restrictions.
Legal Framework
The bill operates under Congress's constitutional authority over federal appropriations and its plenary power over immigration matters. By restricting the use of federal funds rather than directly prohibiting enforcement activities, the legislation employs the spending power to achieve its policy objectives. This approach avoids direct conflict with executive branch authority to enforce immigration laws while using Congress's power of the purse to shape enforcement priorities. The measure does not explicitly preempt state or local immigration enforcement activities, though it may create practical coordination challenges if state and local authorities conduct enforcement in areas where federal agencies are prohibited from operating. The bill does not establish specific judicial review provisions, leaving challenges to be addressed under general administrative law principles. Questions may arise regarding whether this restriction impermissibly interferes with executive authority to enforce immigration laws or whether it represents a permissible exercise of congressional spending power. The temporary and geographically limited nature of the restriction may strengthen its constitutional defensibility by minimizing interference with overall immigration enforcement operations.
Critical Issues
The bill presents several significant implementation and legal challenges. Constitutional concerns center on the separation of powers and whether Congress can use appropriations restrictions to effectively prevent the executive branch from enforcing duly enacted immigration laws in specific geographic areas. The executive branch may argue this impermissibly interferes with its constitutional duty to faithfully execute the laws. Definitional ambiguities create practical implementation challenges, particularly regarding what constitutes "civil immigration enforcement activity" and how to precisely measure the one-mile radius from venues that may have multiple entrances or large footprints. The restriction could create enforcement gaps that are exploited by individuals seeking to avoid immigration authorities, potentially concentrating unauthorized populations in areas surrounding World Cup venues. Coordination challenges between federal, state, and local law enforcement may arise, particularly if state or local authorities continue enforcement activities in areas where federal agencies are restricted. Critics may argue the bill prioritizes international sporting events over immigration law enforcement and public safety, creates special carve-outs that undermine the uniform application of immigration law, and potentially encourages unauthorized presence in the United States. The lack of exceptions for national security threats or individuals with serious criminal histories may prove particularly controversial. Cost implications include not only the direct administrative burden but also the opportunity costs of suspended enforcement activities and potential downstream effects on immigration court dockets and detention capacity.
Key Points
- Separation of powers concerns regarding congressional restriction on executive enforcement authority
- Ambiguity in defining "civil immigration enforcement activity" and measuring one-mile boundaries
- Potential for enforcement gaps and strategic avoidance of immigration authorities
- Absence of exceptions for national security threats or serious criminal offenders
- Coordination challenges between federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies
- Questions about preferential treatment for international sporting event attendees over uniform law enforcement