Protecting Sensitive Locations Act
- Bill Number
- H.R. 1061
- Origin Chamber
- House
- Congress
- 119th Congress, Session 1
- Policy Area
- Immigration
- Status
- Introduced
- Latest Action
- 2025-02-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- Last Updated
- 2026-04-22T08:07:34Z
AI-Generated Summary
Purpose of the Legislation
The Protecting Sensitive Locations Act (H.R. 1061) aims to restrict immigration enforcement activities—such as arrests or searches—near places essential for public health, education, safety, and community services. It seeks to ensure that people, including immigrants, can access these locations without fear of immigration actions, while allowing exceptions for urgent threats to safety. The bill amends section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which outlines the powers of immigration officers.
Key Provisions
- Definition of Sensitive Locations: These include any area within 1,000 feet of hospitals, schools (from preschools to universities), child care centers, places of worship, disaster relief sites, courthouses, polling places, libraries, social service offices (e.g., food banks, domestic violence shelters), and other public assistance or community facilities. The Secretary of Homeland Security can add more locations.
- Restrictions on Enforcement Actions: Immigration officers from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), cannot conduct enforcement actions (e.g., apprehensions, interviews, surveillance, or arrests) at or focused on sensitive locations, except in "exigent circumstances" like imminent risks of harm, terrorism, or evidence destruction. If circumstances change, actions must stop immediately.
- Procedures for Officers:
- Officers must consult a supervisor in real-time if unsure about exigent circumstances and cannot proceed without approval.
- When actions occur near sensitive locations, officers must act discreetly, minimize time on site, and target only approved individuals.
- If an operation unintentionally leads to a sensitive location without exigent circumstances, officers must pause, maintain discreet surveillance, and seek guidance.
- Exceptions apply to transporting border-apprehended individuals for medical care or rare, pre-approved arrests of terrorists, national security threats, or extreme public dangers.
- Consequences of Violations: If an enforcement action breaks these rules, any evidence from it cannot be used in removal (deportation) proceedings, and the affected person can file a motion to end the case immediately.
- Training and Oversight:
- DHS officials must provide annual training to employees on these rules, as well as related laws on privacy and due process in immigration enforcement.
- Within 30 days of any sensitive location action, DHS must report details (e.g., location, justification, arrests) to the DHS Inspector General and Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties.
- Annual reports to Congress from ICE and CBP detail enforcement actions at sensitive locations, including numbers, targets, and collateral arrests (unintended detentions).
- The DHS Inspector General must report annually on complaints about such actions.
- Definitions and Implementation:
- "Enforcement action" covers immigration-related arrests, searches, or surveillance, even if part of a joint operation with other agencies.
- "Exigent circumstances" are limited to immediate dangers like violence, terrorism, or evidence destruction.
- The bill takes effect 90 days after enactment, with DHS required to issue implementing rules within that time.
Significant Changes to Existing Law
This bill adds a new subsection (i) to INA section 287, which previously granted immigration officers broad powers to interrogate and arrest without warrants in public spaces but did not specify restrictions for sensitive locations. It codifies and expands informal DHS policies (e.g., memos limiting enforcement at schools or churches) into enforceable law, introduces mandatory reporting and training, and creates remedies like evidence suppression for violations—changes not present in prior statutes.
Potential Impacts
- On Government Agencies: DHS, ICE, and CBP face operational limits, requiring more planning, supervisor approvals, and documentation, which could slow enforcement but enhance accountability. Increased reporting may strain resources but improve oversight.
- On Citizens and Residents: Immigrants and communities gain protected access to essential services like healthcare, education, and emergency aid, potentially reducing fear and encouraging participation in civic activities (e.g., voting, job training). Non-immigrants benefit indirectly from safer public spaces.
- On International Relations: Minimal direct impact, as the bill focuses on domestic enforcement; it could indirectly affect perceptions of U.S. immigration policies abroad by emphasizing humanitarian protections.
Main Stakeholders Affected
- Immigrants and Non-Citizens: Primary beneficiaries, as the bill shields them from enforcement while seeking services, potentially aiding integration and family stability.
- DHS Agencies (ICE, CBP): Directly regulated, with officers needing to adapt practices and face penalties for non-compliance.
- Community Organizations: Schools, hospitals, religious groups, shelters, and social service providers gain reassurance that their sites won't be enforcement hotspots, supporting their missions.
- Local Governments and Residents: Affected by enforcement shifts away from public areas, possibly altering community safety dynamics near sensitive sites.
- Congress and Oversight Bodies: Gain new reporting tools for monitoring, enabling better legislative review of immigration enforcement.
Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications
- Legal Implications: Strengthens procedural safeguards in immigration proceedings by making location-based violations grounds for dismissing cases, aligning with due process requirements under the INA. It may lead to more court challenges over what qualifies as "exigent circumstances" or evidence admissibility.
- Constitutional Implications: Balances enforcement authority with constitutional rights, such as the Fourth Amendment (protection against unreasonable searches) and Fifth Amendment (due process), by limiting intrusive actions in communal spaces. It avoids infringing on core executive powers but mandates congressional oversight, potentially raising separation-of-powers questions if enforcement is seen as overly restricted.
- Political Implications: As a bipartisan but primarily Democratic-sponsored bill (introduced by Rep. Espaillat and others), it highlights debates on humane immigration enforcement versus public safety priorities, potentially influencing future policy on sanctuary areas or civil liberties in high-enforcement contexts.
This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.
Sponsor
Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13]
Cosponsors (154)
Rep. McGovern, James P. [D-MA-2], Rep. Sánchez, Linda T. [D-CA-38], Rep. Tonko, Paul [D-NY-20], Rep. Johnson, Henry C. "Hank" [D-GA-4], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Lofgren, Zoe [D-CA-18], Rep. Takano, Mark [D-CA-39], Rep. McIver, LaMonica [D-NJ-10], Rep. Grijalva, Raúl M. [D-AZ-7], Rep. Velázquez, Nydia M. [D-NY-7], Rep. Pallone, Frank [D-NJ-6], Rep. Ansari, Yassamin [D-AZ-3], Rep. Moore, Gwen [D-WI-4], Rep. Wasserman Schultz, Debbie [D-FL-25], Rep. Green, Al [D-TX-9], Rep. Barragán, Nanette Diaz [D-CA-44], Rep. Goldman, Daniel S. [D-NY-10], Rep. Pingree, Chellie [D-ME-1], Rep. Tokuda, Jill N. [D-HI-2], Rep. Peters, Scott H. [D-CA-50], Rep. Hayes, Jahana [D-CT-5], Rep. Panetta, Jimmy [D-CA-19], Rep. Larson, John B. [D-CT-1], Rep. Clarke, Yvette D. [D-NY-9], Rep. Crockett, Jasmine [D-TX-30], Rep. Ramirez, Delia C. [D-IL-3], Rep. Garcia, Sylvia R. [D-TX-29], Rep. García, Jesús G. "Chuy" [D-IL-4], Rep. Jayapal, Pramila [D-WA-7], Rep. Bonamici, Suzanne [D-OR-1], Rep. Beyer, Donald S. [D-VA-8], Rep. Casten, Sean [D-IL-6], Rep. Omar, Ilhan [D-MN-5], Rep. Jacobs, Sara [D-CA-51], Rep. Turner, Sylvester [D-TX-18], Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria [D-NY-14], Rep. Garcia, Robert [D-CA-42], Rep. Mfume, Kweisi [D-MD-7], Rep. Castro, Joaquin [D-TX-20], Rep. Correa, J. Luis [D-CA-46], Rep. Pettersen, Brittany [D-CO-7], Rep. Ross, Deborah K. [D-NC-2], Rep. Crow, Jason [D-CO-6], Rescom. Hernández, Pablo [D-PR-At Large], Rep. Trahan, Lori [D-MA-3], Rep. Frost, Maxwell [D-FL-10], Rep. Meng, Grace [D-NY-6], Rep. Quigley, Mike [D-IL-5], Rep. Casar, Greg [D-TX-35], Rep. Friedman, Laura [D-CA-30] and 104 more
Recent Actions
- 2025-02-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
- 2025-02-06: Introduced in House
- 2025-02-06: Introduced in House
Bill Versions
- Protecting Sensitive Locations Act — issued 2025-02-06 — PDF (18 pages)