HB 361, titled the Lawful Immigration System Act of 2026, would prohibit state entities, local governments, and law enforcement agencies from adopting or maintaining “sanctuary policies” for people unlawfully present in the United States. The bill defines sanctuary policies broadly to include restrictions on sharing immigration-status information, complying with immigration detainers, notifying federal immigration authorities before release, allowing federal interviews, participating in federal immigration agreements, or providing incarceration and release information to federal immigration agencies.
The bill also requires law enforcement agencies to use reasonably available resources to support federal immigration enforcement and bars state or local officials from restricting communication or cooperation with federal immigration agencies, except where federal law expressly prohibits it. It creates duties for secure correctional facilities to notify federal immigration authorities about certain inmates’ discharge dates and to cooperate in transfer to federal custody, with different timing rules for inmates convicted of violent offenses versus other applicable criminal cases. It further requires local agencies and judges to record immigration-detainer status in case files and court records, and encourages counties to enter agreements with federal immigration authorities to house detainees and recover detention costs.
Impact
HB 361 would add a new set of immigration-enforcement mandates to KRS Chapter 61 and amend Kentucky’s county and municipal road-aid statutes to create financial penalties for local governments found to be in violation. It would authorize the Attorney General to issue findings of violation and, after continued noncompliance, trigger suspension of county or municipal road aid funds until the local government comes back into compliance. The bill also creates a rebuttable presumption of malfeasance for intentional violations by state or local officers and allows impeachment proceedings, and it creates a civil cause of action for victims or families if a person released because of a sanctuary policy later commits a violent offense.
In addition to the immigration-related provisions, the bill would require documentation and retention of records when victim or witness immigration information is withheld, while carving out protections so that victims and witnesses who cooperate in good faith are not required to have their immigration information shared. Overall, the bill would significantly expand state-level control over local immigration-related practices and tie compliance to funding and liability consequences.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or floor sentiment in the materials supplied. Based on the bill text, the measure is strongly pro-enforcement and anti-sanctuary, reflecting a policy preference for cooperation with federal immigration authorities and for penalties against local noncompliance. The bill’s introduction and referral to Judiciary suggest it is being treated as a significant legal and constitutional issue.
Contention
The main points of contention are likely to be the bill’s limits on local autonomy, the mandatory cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, and the use of state road-aid funding as a penalty for noncompliance. Opponents would likely focus on concerns about due process, local control, public safety, and whether the bill could discourage victims and witnesses from reporting crimes if immigration-related information is collected or shared. Supporters would likely argue that the bill improves public safety, prevents sanctuary policies, and ensures that local governments cooperate with federal immigration law. The civil-liability provision and the waiver of immunities are also likely to be controversial because they expose local governments and agencies to damages claims.