The proposals range from measures that would restrict where federal immigration agents can operate, to bills creating new legal pathways for residents to sue those agents, to proposals that would shield agents from having their personal information disclosed publicly.
The volume and scope of the legislation reflect growing political momentum and tension around immigration at the state level — even as many of the bills face long odds of advancing. Immigration enforcement is primarily a federal responsibility, and states historically have had limited authority to shape who can remain in the country. But lawmakers are acting where they can.
“There is important space for state officials to decide to what extent they are going to use state resources to enforce immigration law, or on the flip side, create a more welcoming environment for migrants in their communities,” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a law professor at Ohio State University.
The flurry of legislation is unfolding amid the Trump administration’s intensifying immigration crackdown and a rise in protests over enforcement operations. In Minneapolis this month, federal agents shot and killed two U.S. citizens, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, during protests –– fueling national outrage and scrutiny of federal enforcement tactics.
Those shootings have also deepened public mistrust, as federal authorities’ accounts of what happened don’t match what is shown in publicly available video footage and documents. The discrepancies have become a flashpoint for lawmakers pushing for greater oversight of federal agents operating in their states.
A Surge of Bills
The purpose and scope of immigration-related bills vary widely.
In several Democratic-led states, lawmakers have advanced proposals aimed at limiting enforcement or increasing protections for immigrant communities. Some bills would bar or sharply restrict federal agents from carrying out immigration arrests in or near schools, churches, hospitals and courthouses.
New Mexico legislators recently advanced a bill that would prohibit government entities across the state from signing contracts with the federal government to detain people accused of immigration violations. Existing contracts also would be terminated. Hundreds of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainees — many from Minnesota — are now housed in several rural New Mexico county jails. Republicans opposed to the bill have said those communities need the jobs and funding the federal detention contracts provide.
Maryland lawmakers are considering a variety of bills, including one Democratic-sponsored measure that would prohibit sheriffs, local police or any “agent of the state” from entering into 287(g) agreements with federal authorities to enforce civil immigration law and would also terminate existing agreements.
Some Maryland sheriffs spoke out against the proposal last week, arguing that 287(g) agreements help them do their jobs and serve as a “true public safety tool.”
Another bill set to be introduced in Maryland by Democratic Del. Adrian Boafo would bar ICE officers who joined after Jan. 20, 2025, the date of President Donald Trump’s inauguration, from holding positions within state law enforcement in the future.
Georgia Senate Democrats unveiled a package of bills that would limit face coverings and require federal immigration agents to show their badges. The legislation also would restrict outside National Guard deployments to the state, require judicial warrants for immigration enforcement in sensitive locations and allow residents to sue federal officials for civil rights violations. Given the state legislature’s Republican majority, these bills are unlikely to advance.
“We’re seeing some new and unique approaches that we haven’t seen before, and I don’t think that’s going to be slowing down for the foreseeable future,” said Amanda Essex, the National Conference of State Legislatures’ Criminal and Civil Justice Program principal.
In Pennsylvania, lawmakers have introduced legislation that would ban mask-wearing by law enforcement, ban ICE arrests near courthouses, and criminalize certain violent enforcement tactics.
But Democratic state Sen. Tim Kearney said in a news release that he’s doubtful his state — where Republicans control the state Senate and Democrats the House and governor’s office — will act on several bills challenging immigration enforcement.
“Pennsylvania should pass these bills, but we need to be realistic that in a divided legislature, that is not going to happen,” Kearney said.
Lawmakers in Republican-led states are advancing a different set of immigration proposals, primarily to crack down on illegal immigration and support federal agents.
A bill introduced in West Virginia would create state-level criminal penalties for people found to be in the country illegally. The Florida House approved a measure requiring all businesses to use the federal verification tool, E-Verify, to determine whether new hires can legally work in the country.
Other bills in Florida would require new voters to show proof of U.S. citizenship and mandate that public colleges and universities admit only students who are U.S. citizens or lawfully present in the country.
In Tennessee, state Republican leaders, relying on guidance from the White House, announced a package of bills earlier this month that would add requirements for proving legal status to access grocery and housing benefits, school enrollment and professional licensing. Other legislation would require state and local courts to cooperate with ICE agents, and one measure would mandate that all local law enforcement agencies enter into 287(g) agreements with the feds. Republicans control both legislative chambers and the governor’s mansion in the state.
Another high-profile piece of legislation in Tennessee would prohibit people from seeking election to federal positions in the U.S. House and Senate if they hold dual citizenship or are not a natural-born citizen.
“Tennesseans should have full confidence that those serving at the highest levels of government put America first. If you want to represent our state in Washington, being born in the United States should be a basic qualification,” Republican state Rep. Johnny Garrett, one of the bill’s sponsors, said in a statement to the Tennessee Lookout.
The U.S. Constitution requires only that the president be a natural-born citizen.
Some Republican state lawmakers and national leaders have expressed concerns about the public release of sensitive or private information about federal agents, saying legislation is necessary to protect officers and their families from harassment or threats.
Tennessee lawmakers are now considering a bill that would conceal the names of all local, state and federal law enforcement officers involved in immigration enforcement. Critics argue that such proposals could be used to shield misconduct and make it harder to identify officers involved in high-profile or deadly encounters.
At least 15 states have proposed bills that would prohibit federal agents from wearing masks. California was the first state to enact a ban on law enforcement officers wearing masks, but the Trump administration sued to block the law and it is on hold until the lawsuit is resolved. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees immigration enforcement, also has said that these types of bans stoke dangerous rhetoric against Immigration and Customs Enforcement “for cheap points and fundraising emails.”
Minneapolis Shootings Reverberate Nationwide
The shooting deaths of two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis earlier this month have intensified scrutiny of federal agents and prompted renewed state-level calls for greater transparency, independent investigations and stronger legal remedies. A third shooting injured a man who fled ICE agents at a traffic stop.
Trump has said Maine, where Democratic Gov. Janet Mills has openly opposed his policies, will be the next target for intensive immigration enforcement. Maine Democratic lawmakers pledged to file legislation this year that would prevent erroneous detentions and enforcement in schools and hospitals. Advocates are working with lawmakers to stop local jails from accepting federal payments to house immigrant detainees.
Maine Republicans blame the increased attention from Trump on a new state law barring local cooperation with federal agents.
Lawmakers in several states, including California, Colorado, Georgia, New York, Oregon and Pennsylvania have already or plan to introduce measures that would allow residents to sue federal immigration agents for alleged civil rights violations. Supporters argue that existing federal legal remedies are too narrow or difficult to pursue.
Illinois has a similar law on the books, which was enacted in December, but some experts say it faces significant legal and logistical hurdles. The law has not yet been used to sue federal agents, according to immigration policy experts.
The U.S. Department of Justice sued Illinois over the law in an attempt to block it from going into effect, arguing that the measure is unconstitutional and threatens officers’ safety.
Jacqueline Stevens, a political science professor and founding faculty director of the Deportation Research Clinic at Northwestern University, said civil lawsuits alone are unlikely to deter misconduct because they rarely impose personal consequences on federal agents.
“You need to have criminal sanctions in place and not these civil sanctions, because if you get one or two ICE agents who are put in prison, that’s going to have an impact,” Stevens said.
This story first appeared in Stateline. Read the original here.
