Civil arrests for persons attending court proceedings prohibited, and civil remedies provided.
HF4972 would create a new Minnesota law prohibiting “civil arrests” of people attending court proceedings, including parties, witnesses, potential witnesses, and specified “court companions.” The bill defines civil arrest to include arrests for alleged civil immigration violations and brief stops to serve immigration notices to appear, while excluding criminal arrests, arrests for probation/parole violations, and arrests made under a judicial warrant or order. It also defines who counts as a court companion, covering family members, romantic partners, interpreters, advocates, caregivers, transporters, and others assisting a person in court.
The bill protects covered individuals while they are going to, present at, and returning from court, extending that protection to the courthouse, courthouse premises, surrounding sidewalks and streets, and public ways within 1,000 feet of the courthouse. It authorizes courts to issue orders to protect this privilege and allows civil lawsuits for violations, including false imprisonment damages, statutory damages of $10,000, equitable relief, and attorney fees. The bill also amends Minnesota’s arrest statute to clarify that U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services arrests are allowed except as prohibited by the new court-protection law.
HF4972 would add a new chapter to Minnesota Statutes creating a court-access protection regime that limits civil immigration-related arrests near courthouses and provides a private right of action for violations. It would also amend the general arrest statute to incorporate the new restriction, affecting law enforcement agencies, federal immigration officers, private actors, and anyone attempting to detain covered individuals in or around court settings. The bill expressly preserves criminal arrests and judicial-warrant-based arrests, and it limits liability exposure for the judicial branch and court personnel acting lawfully.
Based on the bill’s caption and text, the measure appears aimed at protecting access to courts and ensuring that people can participate in proceedings without fear of immigration enforcement actions. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or recorded support/opposition in the materials supplied. The overall framing suggests a civil-liberties and court-access rationale, with the bill presented as a protective measure rather than an enforcement expansion.
The main point of contention is likely the restriction on civil immigration enforcement near courthouses, especially the prohibition on arrests by federal immigration authorities such as CBP and USCIS when people are attending court. Supporters would likely emphasize access to justice, witness participation, and safety for families and advocates, while opponents may argue the bill interferes with immigration enforcement and public safety operations. Another potential issue is the breadth of the 1,000-foot buffer zone and the inclusion of a wide range of “court companions,” which could raise concerns about enforcement scope and practical implementation.