No Special Immunity for Violating Our State Laws Act of 2026
- Sponsor
- Rep. Scanlon, Mary Gay [D-PA-5]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- May 15, 2026
Bottom line
This bill seeks to increase accountability for federal immigration enforcement officers by subjecting them to state criminal prosecution for acts causing death or serious bodily injury.
What it actually does
This bill amends title 18 of the United States Code to explicitly waive immunity from state prosecution for federal law enforcement officers who, while enforcing immigration laws, commit any act that causes the death of, or serious bodily injury to, another person. It clarifies that such officers are not immune from prosecution under state law for these specific actions.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue this bill closes a loophole that allows federal officers to evade accountability for serious misconduct, particularly in immigration enforcement contexts. They contend it ensures justice for victims and upholds the principle that no one is above the law, regardless of their federal employment, empowering states to address egregious actions.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue this bill could undermine federal supremacy, create a patchwork of inconsistent state laws affecting federal operations, and expose federal officers to politically motivated prosecutions, thereby hindering their ability to perform critical national security and border enforcement duties effectively and safely.
The bill is exceptionally short and can be read and understood quickly, allowing ample time for detailed consideration of its implications.
Section 2(a), amending Chapter 211 of title 18, United States Code, by adding Section 3245.
Waiver of Immunity for Federal Immigration Law Enforcement Officers
This provision establishes that federal law enforcement officers are not immune from prosecution under state law if they cause the death or serious bodily injury of another person while performing duties related to immigration law enforcement. It explicitly removes a potential defense for federal officers in such circumstances, allowing state courts to exercise jurisdiction over these specific acts.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision is crucial for ensuring accountability and justice, particularly in cases where federal internal review processes may be perceived as insufficient. They contend it empowers states to protect their citizens from federal overreach or misconduct, fostering greater public trust.
Critics contend
Critics would likely argue this provision could lead to a chilling effect on federal officers, making them hesitant to perform their duties effectively due to fear of state prosecution. They might also raise concerns about states potentially using such powers for political purposes, interfering with federal operations and national security.
Tradeoffs
The bill navigates the tension between the principle of federal supremacy and the need for federal officers to operate without undue interference, against the principle of local accountability and the right of states to prosecute crimes committed within their borders, even by federal agents.