2025 Trends in State Preemption Legislation
Local Solutions Support Center (LSSC) is tracking nearly 600 abusive preemption bills so far this year - a significantly higher number of bills than our team identified in all of 2024. There are several reasons for the increase - Texas is in session this year, and the Lone Star State always churns out a significant number of preemption bills. But the new federal landscape is emboldening state lawmakers to advance harmful preemption bills - with a particular focus on anti-immigrant, anti-LGBTQ+, and anti-DEI legislation.
The bills are more than just numbers and trends that reflect a moment in time: They’re policies designed to harm real people across the country. Several of LSSC’s recent media roundtables (on topics including immigration, criminal justice, and anti-LGBTQ+ bills) have featured discussions with advocates, experts, and electeds about how this year’s tranche of preemption bills are impacting people in their communities. LSSC is continually monitoring abusive preemption bills as part of our work to defend and advance local democracy, and this memo covers the highlights to date across state legislative sessions. Bill tallies are current through the week of March 17th, while the status of legislation is current as of March 31st.
Immigration
There is a marked resurgence of immigration-related preemption bills this year: There are currently an astounding 85 bills moving across 29 states. Last year, our team tracked just 11 immigration preemption bills across the country. There’s a clear driver of this anti-immigration sentiment: sweeping policies and inflammatory rhetoric from the new administration that demands local officials either get on board or face consequences.
These types of state bills are proliferating right now precisely because the federal government cannot compel local officials to take action on immigration. Most are not messaging bills; they have real teeth that are meant to intimidate local elected officials. They also heighten concerns of racial profiling, infringe on local law enforcement's ability to prioritize issues that address their communities’ needs, and waste time and resources.
Five measures have already become law this year: SB 2-C in Florida allows the state Attorney General to step in if a locality refuses to comply with an immigration detainer from the federal government, and allows officials to face up to $5,000 in fines. South Dakota’s SB 7 bans municipalities from adopting a sanctuary status; while Tenneessee’s SB 6002 creates criminal penalties for officials who adopt sanctuary policies and subsequently requires their removal from office upon conviction. Wyoming’s HB 133 bans local and state sanctuary policies; while Missouri’s HB 495 requires law enforcement to report the citizen or immigration status of individuals arrested for certain offenses.
Thirteen immigration bills are originating from Texas alone; while another seven are coming from Missouri. Financial penalties are a prolific theme across many of the bills - a number of states (including Kansas, Missouri, and Texas) are threatening to cut off state grants for municipalities that embrace sanctuary policies; while an Oklahoma bill would even allow the state’s Attorney General to set aside local tax revenue of a municipality adopting sanctuary policies. The bills also seek out additional ways to marginalize immigrants - lawmakers in Tennessee are pursuing legislation that would allow schools to refuse enrollment to students who are non-citizens - a proposal that stands in direct opposition to a 1982 Supreme Court ruling which holds that states cannot constitutionally deny students a free public education on account of their immigration status.
Democracy & Elections
Our team is tracking 53 bills across 22 states related to democracy and elections - a noticeable increase from the 35 that were introduced in all of last year. These bills come amidst an atmosphere of heightened mis- and disinformation related to elections, and as some lawmakers in Congress try to advance legislation that would make it extraordinarily difficult for Americans to vote in elections.
Many of these state preemption bills are designed to weaken our democracy, making elections less accessible and less secure. (Which also happens to be a perfect recipe for crying foul when a candidate or party doesn’t like an election’s outcome.) These bills dramatically restrict access to voting; at least 13 of the bills we’re tracking curtail absentee voting and early vote periods, as well as scale back the availability of drop boxes. Lawmakers in Kansas passed SB 4, which would require absentee ballots be returned by 7pm on Election Night; currently absentee ballots must be received by the Friday following Election Day. Kansas Governor Laura Kelly vetoed this sweeping preemption bill - but the legislature quickly overrode that.
Other trends include restricting funding sources election administrators can tap to run elections. Officials have estimated that it will cost more than $53 billion over the next decade to modernize the nation’s election infrastructure. Congress has responded to this need with an utter inability to consistently and adequately fund elections; and many states have sought to ban nonpartisan, philanthropic support for election administration - often while offering no additional public funding in return. This year, lawmakers in states including Minnesota (HF 638 and HF 991), Wyoming (HB 228), and Kansas (SB 5) have proposed such bans on accepting non-governmental funds for election purposes or restrictions on how funds can be spent.
DEI & Education
Education has been a hot spot for preemption bills in recent years, and that still holds true - our team is tracking 105 bills to date, nearly matching the 107 introduced in all of 2024. What is new, however, is the type of education-related preemption bills currently in play.
There are at least 27 bills related to undermining or eliminating DEI programs in education. Particularly noteworthy is SB 1 in Ohio; sweeping legislation, signed by the governor on March 28th, which bans DEI trainings, offices, and programs at state higher education institutions, prohibits concepts related to race or sex from being promoted or required in training, requires all bachelor’s students to take an “American civic liberty” class, and increases oversight of faculty members. Other bills do not mention DEI but have the same goals - Iowa’s HSB 52, for example, establishes a “School of Intellectual Freedom” at the University of Iowa. (It’s worth noting that many anti-DEI preemption bills extend far beyond public schools - in Florida, HB 1571/SB 420 prohibit any county or municipality from taking any action whatsoever in support of DEI. The bills even allow for the governor to remove from office any officials found to be supportive of DEI - a dangerous measure which also applies retroactively.)
Nearly a dozen bills seek to compel schools to provide anti-abortion curriculum. In Arkansas (HB 1180) and New Hampshire (HB 662), bills would require students to be shown videos produced by the anti-abortion group Live Action; while Montana’s HB 753 would require students to be shown images from dilation and evacuation (D&E) procedures.
A number of states are following Louisiana’s lead in trying to require public schools to display the Ten Commandments. Bills demanding their display have been introduced in at least seven states, including Arizona, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Dakota, South Carolina, and South Dakota.
Anti-LGBTQ+
There are 88 anti-LGBTQ+ preemption bills moving in state legislatures right now, a noticeable uptick from the 62 we tracked throughout all of 2024. Once again a large number of these bills focus on making schools less safe and nurturing environments for LGBTQ+ youth, and a handful of states - Missouri, Tennessee, and Texas - are leading the charge.
A number of bills this year call for outing students - bills like HB 670 & SB 37 in Virginia and HB 5876 in Connecticut would require teachers and school administrators to alert parents if they suspect or know that their child identifies as LGBTQ+. At least 24 bills prohibit use of preferred pronouns in schools or workplaces, or prohibit policies related to preferred pronouns. These include bills like HB 2062 in Arizona, SB 76 in Kansas, HB 400 in Montana, and SB 1126 and 1252 in Tennessee.
At least 14 bills ban transgender people - including students in schools - from using the restroom that aligns with their gender identity. Arizona (SB 1003), North Dakota (HB 1144), and Texas (HB 1014 and 1015) are among the states moving these types of discriminatory bills.
A number of states continue to pursue efforts to ban transgender kids from participating in school sports; and we’re continuing to see ways that lawmakers are seeking to punish schools inclined to support their transgender students. For example, SB 55 in Missouri bans public schools from being members of any athletic leagues that “allow students to use performance enhancing drugs.”
For a deeper dive on anti-LGBTQ+ preemption, check out the roundtable we hosted with the Equality Federation last month. The discussion features advocates from Ohio, North Carolina, and Texas.
State Snapshots
Missouri
Missouri is a hot spot for abusive preemption this year and has already advanced nearly 50 bills hostile to local democracy. Most notably, lawmakers are advancing a Death Star bill that would make it alarmingly easy to punish localities for adopting policies some state lawmakers don’t like. SB 459 would allow any member of the legislature to allege that any local policy may be out of step with state law - and a simple investigation from the Attorney General could result in localities having sales tax revenue withheld until they strike the policy in question.
Lawmakers prioritized a number of immigration and criminal justice-related preemption bills this year. A freshly signed preemption law will transfer control of St. Louis’ police force from the city to a state board of political appointees designated by the governor. The measure would make Kansas City one of the only major cities in the nation to have state control of its municipal police; and the preemption policy is the culmination of a decade-long battle.
The state also is a notorious leader in anti-LGBTQ+ preemption bills this year, and lawmakers are particularly invested in making schools less safe and welcoming spaces for LGBTQ+ youth. They’ve embraced measures banning transgender kids from both sports and from the restrooms that align with their gender identity; barring teachers and administrators from using students’ preferred pronouns; and requiring school officials to out students suspected of identifying as transgender or nonbinary to their parents. Another bill seeks to ban drag shows. And like many other states this session, Missouri is trying to stamp out DEI – HB 1024 prohibits public educational institutions from using state funds for anything remotely related to DEI.
Texas Doubles Down on Death Stars
Texas lawmakers have introduced more than 100 abusive preemption bills so far this year - with a particular emphasis on immigration and anti-LGBTQ+ preemption measures. But in recent weeks, advocates have clocked another concerning trend in the Lone Star State: the evolution of Death Star preemption.
Texas made the wrong kind of history in 2023 when it enacted a sweeping ‘Death Star 2.0’ preemption law, HB 2127, which eliminated all local authority to enact policies related to agriculture, business and commerce, finance, insurance, labor, local government, natural resources, occupations, or property, unless specifically authorized by state law. Cities across the state challenged the law, though it remains in effect today while on appeal. Despite the legal challenges to the measure, state legislators are doubling down - and in just the last few weeks have advanced more than a half-dozen additional ‘Death Star 2.0’ laws that both expand the state’s grip on local authority and make it harder to challenge such measures.
HB 5042, HB 5203, HB 5612, SB 2858, and SB 3016 all expand the reach of the 2023 law - further restricting local authority on health and safety codes, elections codes, and penal codes. Some of these laws are also designed to ensure that they only can be challenged in the Texas Supreme Court, and only allow courts to invalidate laws found to be unconstitutional specifically with regard to the person bringing the challenge. These bills indicate an alarming evolution in how abusive preemption bills are crafted, making it harder for advocates to pursue traditional litigation pathways when challenging state interference.
For more information on specific preemption trends, please visit www.supportdemocracy.org.