Two thirds of the nation's states have taken action to join in President Trump's bid to crackdown on illegal immigration and "sanctuary cities," a sweeping national move that would bolster the administration's effort even if it loses in the Supreme Court.

The Migration Policy Institute reports that 33 states have moved to choke off illegal immigration, led by Texas which OK'd a law to block cities from giving "sanctuary" to illegals.

"While Texas was the first state to pass a sweeping law focused on illegal immigration since the presidential election, at least 32 other states have introduced immigration enforcement bills," said the Institute.

Trump has focused on deporting illegal immigrants with criminal records or who are facing criminal charges. He is also hoping to block refugees and immigrants from several countries with terrorist ties.

States, meanwhile, are looking mostly at restricting the ability of cities to become sanctuaries for illegals, even those with criminal records.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, as of May 8, 2017, 24 states were considering anti-sanctuary bills and four had passed such legislation during their 2017 legislative sessions, said the Institute.

"Georgia and Indiana enacted laws restricting postsecondary institutions from adopting sanctuary policies. Mississippi went a step further, prohibiting local jurisdictions and postsecondary institutions from adopting or maintaining sanctuary policies," said the group. It added:

The outcome of challenges to the new wave of state activism is difficult to predict. First, there is an altered legal reality. The challenge to SB 1070 was brought by the Obama administration, a situation unlikely to occur in the Trump administration against states seeking to mandate compliance with ICE or toughen penalties against illegal immigration. As a result, it is likely that all challenges to such state laws will instead be brought by private parties and by some local jurisdictions. The legal battles are also occurring in a time when the political climate on immigration enforcement at the federal level—and in many states—has hardened. However, many courts have also shown resistance to upholding the President's actions on immigration, which may influence at least some as they grapple with this latest set of state activity. Paul Bedard, the Washington Examiner's "Washington Secrets" columnist, can be contacted at pbedard@washingtonexaminer.com