HB352 would add immigration-related duties and restrictions to Kentucky’s postsecondary education laws. The bill amends the powers and duties of the Council on Postsecondary Education to require public postsecondary institutions to collect student immigration data each semester and submit that data to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. It also creates a new section prohibiting public postsecondary institutions and their employees from adopting or enforcing any “sanctuary policy,” broadly defined to include limits on cooperation with federal immigration authorities, restrictions on detainers, or policies that prevent asking about citizenship or immigration status.
The bill further provides that any sanctuary policy adopted by a public postsecondary institution is void and unenforceable. In addition, if a public postsecondary institution negligently enrolls a person unlawfully present in the United States and that person later commits a violent offense, the victim or the victim’s family may sue the institution for compensatory and punitive damages, costs, and attorney’s fees, and the bill expressly waives sovereign and related immunities for that claim. The measure also includes a broad definition of sanctuary policy and ties the new requirements to public colleges, universities, and their police departments.
Impact
HB352 would significantly expand state-level immigration compliance obligations for Kentucky public postsecondary institutions and the Council on Postsecondary Education. It would require new data collection and reporting to ICE, invalidate any conflicting institutional policies, and expose institutions to civil liability under specified circumstances. The bill would affect KRS 164.020 by adding immigration-data reporting duties and would create a new statutory section in KRS Chapter 164 governing sanctuary policies and enforcement.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee discussion or votes, the available record suggests the measure is framed as a strong immigration-enforcement bill rather than a compromise proposal. Its structure indicates a clear intent to align public colleges with federal immigration authorities and to prevent institutional noncooperation. Because no transcripts or vote history are provided, there is no documented legislative sentiment in the record beyond the bill’s own policy direction.
Contention
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s broad prohibition on sanctuary policies, the requirement that institutions collect and transmit immigration data to ICE, and the private right of action against institutions for negligent enrollment followed by a violent offense. Supporters would likely view these provisions as necessary for immigration enforcement and public safety, while opponents would likely raise concerns about student privacy, institutional autonomy, federal-state relations, and the fairness of imposing liability on colleges for later criminal acts by enrolled students. The waiver of immunity and the breadth of the sanctuary-policy definition are especially likely to be disputed.