The U.S. House of Representatives has passed the Big Beautiful Bill, and the Senate is deciding whether to do so. Among the details being debated is whether, and if so to what extent, to permit individuals and businesses to deduct state and local taxes (SALT) in calculating income subject to the federal income tax.1
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform just held a hearing2 in which the governors of New York, Illinois, and Minnesota were asked to justify their policies of providing sanctuary to illegal aliens. This, while Los Angeles is embroiled in violence and destruction as illegal aliens and their allies attack and brawl with some law enforcement officers who are attempting to enforce immigration law, and against others trying to restore peace and protect people and property.
A total of 31 states and the District of Columbia have, in whole or in part, declared themselves in rebellion3 against U.S. immigration laws. Twelve states have proudly proclaimed themselves to be sanctuaries for illegal aliens, and cities and counties in 19 additional states have done the same.4
Immigration laws are not the only ones some states have decided to flout.
Federal law prohibits any use of cannabis. It is a Schedule I drug with no accepted use, medical or otherwise. Yet, the laws of 39 states permit its use for medical purposes, and 24 permit its use for recreational purposes.
Title IX mandates that educational institutions receiving federal funds not discriminate on the basis of sex. To this day, however, girls and women continue to find themselves in athletic competitions against—and in locker rooms with—male athletes. While 23 states do, 27 states and the District of Columbia do not have laws protecting girls’ and women’s sports and spaces.
Federal law requires any state that offers illegal aliens in-state tuition rates to also offer them to citizens and legal residents of other states. Passed in 1996, this law is still not complied with by 16 states and the District of Columbia.5
These are just a few of the many examples of laws of the United States that some states and localities openly defy.
When state and local taxes are fully deductible, a taxpayer in a high-tax state can console himself that the $100,000 he is paying in state income, property, and other taxes does not really cost him $100,000. If his marginal tax rate is 32%, his SALT deduction saves him $32,000 in federal taxes.
If those state and local taxes support governments that defy—and in fact do the opposite of—what federal law requires on immigration, cannabis, Title IX, in-state tuition, and more, why should they reduce federal income tax liability?
Rather than decide whether state and local taxes in general are fully, partially, or not deductible at all, Congress could conclude that taxes paid to governments that defy U.S. laws are not deductible for federal income tax purposes. To do otherwise is to leave people and businesses in states that conform to U.S. law paying more in federal taxes than they would if they were in a state that contravenes it.
1 https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R46246 – April 3, 2025, CRS report on the SALT cap
2 https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/a-hearing-with-sanctuary-state-governors/
3 Rebellion: open resistance to an established government
4 https://cis.org/Map-Sanctuary-Cities-Counties-and-States
5 https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/06/05/doj-sues-texas-enforce-law-prohibiting-states-offering-in-state-tution-illegal-aliens-wins/