Protecting Sensitive Locations Act
- Sponsor
- Sen. Blumenthal, Richard [D-CT]
- Committees
- Judiciary Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Feb 6, 2025
Bottom line
The bill seeks to codify and expand protections against immigration enforcement at designated sensitive locations, aiming to ensure access to essential services and community spaces for all individuals by reducing fear of apprehension.
What it actually does
This bill amends the Immigration and Nationality Act to establish statutory limitations on immigration enforcement actions within 1,000 feet of a broadly defined set of "sensitive locations," including schools, hospitals, places of worship, and courthouses. It mandates supervisory approval for exceptions based on narrowly defined "exigent circumstances," requires detailed reporting on such actions, and prohibits the use of evidence obtained in violation of these rules in removal proceedings.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that the bill is crucial for protecting vulnerable communities, ensuring unfettered access to critical services like healthcare, education, and legal aid, and fostering trust between immigrant communities and public institutions. They contend that limiting enforcement in these areas prevents a "chilling effect" that can deter individuals from seeking necessary assistance and participating in civic life.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that the bill unduly restricts immigration officers' ability to enforce federal law, potentially creating "sanctuary zones" that could be exploited by individuals seeking to evade lawful apprehension. They may also contend that the broad definition of "sensitive locations" and narrow definition of "exigent circumstances" could compromise public safety by hindering operations against dangerous individuals.
The bill is relatively short and clearly structured, making it accessible for an informed reader to understand its core provisions and implications within a reasonable timeframe.
Section 2(a), new INA 287(i)(1)
Scope of Immigration Enforcement Restrictions
This provision specifies that the new limitations on immigration enforcement actions apply to all officers and agents of the Department of Homeland Security, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), as well as any individuals deputized to perform immigration enforcement functions through written agreements.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue this ensures consistent application of protections across all relevant enforcement personnel, preventing loopholes based on agency or deputization status.
Critics contend
While no specific opposition is typically raised against this scope, general opponents of the bill would view this as broadening the reach of what they consider to be overly restrictive policies.
Tradeoffs
Ensures comprehensive coverage of enforcement personnel, but also broadens the scope of individuals subject to the new restrictions.
Section 2(a), new INA 287(i)(2)
1,000-Foot Buffer Zone and Supervisory Approval for Exigent Circumstances
This provision establishes a 1,000-foot perimeter around designated sensitive locations where immigration enforcement actions are generally prohibited. It allows for exceptions only under "exigent circumstances" and mandates that officers cease action and consult a supervisor in real-time if they are uncertain about the existence of such circumstances before continuing.
Section 2(a), new INA 287(i)(3)
Operational Guidelines and Specific Exceptions for Enforcement Actions
This provision mandates that if enforcement actions occur near sensitive locations, officers must act discreetly, limit their time, and target only approved individuals. It also clarifies that these restrictions do not apply to the transportation of apprehended individuals for medical care or to rare, premeditated arrests of terrorist suspects or individuals posing extreme danger to national security or public safety, provided there is prior written approval from an appropriate official.
Section 2(a), new INA 287(i)(4)
Exclusion of Evidence and Termination of Removal Proceedings for Violations
This provision establishes a legal consequence for violations of the sensitive locations policy: any information obtained from an enforcement action conducted in violation of this subsection cannot be used as evidence in a removal proceeding. Furthermore, the affected individual can file a motion to immediately terminate their removal proceeding if such a violation occurred.
Section 2(a), new INA 287(i)(5)
Mandatory Annual Training for Enforcement Personnel
This provision requires specific high-level officials within ICE and CBP, along with all employees under their supervision, to receive annual training on compliance with the requirements of this new subsection, as well as existing sections 239 and 384 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996.
Section 2(a), new INA 287(i)(6)
Incident Reporting to Oversight Bodies
This provision mandates that the Secretary of Homeland Security submit a detailed report to both the DHS Office of the Inspector General and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within 30 days of any enforcement action taken at a sensitive location. These reports must include specifics such as the date, location, type of action, justification (exigent circumstances or written approval), intended target, and number of arrests.
Section 2(a), new INA 287(i)(7)
Annual Agency Reports to Congress
This provision requires the Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Commissioner for U.S. Customs and Border Protection to each submit annual reports to relevant Congressional committees. These reports must detail all enforcement actions covered by the subsection during the preceding fiscal year, including the number of actions, specific locations, intended targets, and the number of individuals arrested.
Section 2(a), new INA 287(i)(8)
Annual Inspector General Report on Complaints
This provision mandates the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security to submit an annual report to appropriate Congressional committees. This report will detail complaints received regarding enforcement actions taken in sensitive locations by ICE and CBP during the preceding year, including reported locations, agencies, targets, and arrests.
The term "sensitive location" is extensively defined to include all physical space within 1,000 feet of a wide array of sites. This includes any medical or mental healthcare facility, any public or private school (from preschool to university), any site of an early childhood education program, any scholastic or education-related activity, school buses/stops, recreational facilities for children, child care facilities, disaster or emergency response sites, organizations assisting vulnerable populations (e.g., domestic violence shelters, food banks), places of worship, sites of religious or civil ceremonies, public demonstrations, federal/state/local courthouses, congressional district offices, Social Security offices, public assistance offices, departments of motor vehicles, polling places, labor union halls, and public libraries.
Section 2(a), new INA 287(i)(9)(F)
Why it matters:While defining terms is standard legislative practice, the sheer breadth and detail of this definition represent a significant policy choice that could be easily missed by a casual reader due to its placement and length.
Case for: Proponents argue this comprehensive definition ensures maximum protection for vulnerable individuals and communities, allowing them to access essential services and participate in civic life without fear of immigration enforcement. The 1,000-foot buffer provides a practical margin of safety and clarity.
Case against: Opponents contend that this definition is excessively expansive, creating vast "no-go zones" that severely impede immigration enforcement efforts and could be exploited by individuals seeking to evade lawful apprehension. They argue it makes effective enforcement impractical.
Estimated impact: Significantly expands the geographic areas where immigration enforcement is restricted, potentially impacting numerous communities and enforcement operations nationwide by creating extensive protected zones.
The term "exigent circumstances" is narrowly defined to mean a situation involving: (i) imminent risk of death, violence, or physical harm (including terrorism/national security); (ii) immediate arrest or hot pursuit of an individual presenting an imminent danger to public safety; (iii) a rare, premeditated arrest operation for a terrorist suspect, national security threat, or extraordinary public safety danger (with prior written approval); (iv) a direct threat to national security; or (v) imminent risk of destruction of evidence material to an ongoing criminal case.
Section 2(a), new INA 287(i)(9)(E)
Why it matters:Defining terms is standard legislative practice, but the precise and restrictive nature of this definition is a deliberate policy choice to limit exceptions to the general prohibition on enforcement at sensitive locations.
Case for: Proponents argue this narrow definition prevents arbitrary or overly broad use of exceptions, ensuring that the protections for sensitive locations are robust and not easily circumvented. It focuses exceptions on truly critical and urgent situations, reinforcing the bill's intent.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this definition is too restrictive and could tie the hands of law enforcement officers in legitimate, urgent situations that do not perfectly fit these narrow categories, potentially compromising public safety or the ability to apprehend individuals.
Estimated impact: Significantly limits the situations in which immigration enforcement can occur within sensitive locations, making the general prohibition more effective and less prone to discretionary exceptions.