Following Federal Agenda, 25 State Legislatures Introduce Preemption Bills Targeting Immigrants
Since the new Trump administration took office in January, it has embraced sweeping immigration policies at the federal level and threatened local officials to get on board or face punitive consequences. Despite these efforts, the federal government cannot mandate local officials to take action.
However, in an effort to carry out the federal administration's agenda, state governments are stepping in where the federal government is limited and forcing controversial immigration policies on localities through abusive preemption.
As of March 2nd, Local Solutions Support Center was tracking 71 abusive preemption bills – in 25 states – that attack local authority on immigration policies. This is an alarming rise from the 2024 Legislative Session, when LSSC tracked only 11 immigration preemption bills.
While it is still early in the legislative session, 12 bills have already seen movement through at least one chamber and a bill in Tennessee has already passed. TN SB 6002 – which was signed by the Governor last month – creates criminal penalties for officials who adopt sanctuary policies and subsequently requires their removal from office upon conviction. This bill is just one example of the rising number of bills targeting sanctuary cities and creating consequences for localities who do not comply.
Other examples of potential consequences include:
Removal of Sovereign Immunity: GA SB21 – which passed the House last month – removes sovereign immunity, allowing localities to be sued if they adopt sanctuary policies.
Revocation of State Grant Funding: Several states – including Missouri (MO HB 1163), Kansas (KS SB 178), and Texas (TX HB 2361 and TX HB 2390) – are threatening that enacting sanctuary policies will result in localities being ineligible for state grants.
Several of the proposed bills go a step further than targeting sanctuary cities, and require local law enforcement to comply with anti-immigration policies, despite immigration enforcement being outside the scope of their jobs. Examples include:
New Jersey: NJ A5276 requires that within 24 hours of an arrest, law enforcement agencies must notify federal immigration authorities if the arrested person is an unlawfully present non-citizen charged with certain crimes.
Connecticut: CT HB 6368 requires correction facilities to notify ICE when an undocumented immigrant is in their custody and share whether they are being held or transferred. It also requires local police officers to notify ICE immediately when they come into contact with an undocumented immigrant who has a detainer request or deportation order against them.
Florida: Florida has introduced several bills that would require increased local law enforcement participation with ICE. For example, FL HB 11A would require at least 10% of sworn officers in all state and county law enforcement agencies with more than 25 officers to be available to perform immigration officer duties.
These pieces of legislation cause undue burden on local law enforcement, waste time and resources, heighten concerns of racial profiling, and infringe on local law enforcement's ability to prioritize issues that address their communities’ needs.
In addition to targeting law enforcement, two Tennessee bills target immigrant children. TN HB 793 and TN SB 836 would permit schools to refuse to enroll students who are non-citizens. These bills directly violate the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Plyler v. Doe, a 1982 landmark decision holding that states cannot constitutionally deny students a free public education on account of their immigration status.
LSSC continues to monitor abusive preemption bills in states across the country. If you have any questions about any of the aforementioned bills, or about any of the broader preemption trends our team is tracking nationwide, please contact media@supportdemocracy.org. We’d be happy to get you connected with the right expert.