HB 927 would create a new reporting system for people who are not lawfully present in the United States. It requires a broad list of professionals and officials — including health care workers, teachers, social workers, child-care workers, clergy, law enforcement, and certain Department of Public Health and Human Services employees — to promptly report to the Montana Department of Justice when they learn, through information received in their official capacity, that an individual is unlawfully present. The bill also makes it a misdemeanor to knowingly fail to report or to prevent another person from reporting.
The bill sets out procedures for the Department of Justice to receive and process reports, including collecting identifying information, recording phone reports, keeping the reporter’s identity confidential, and allowing electronic and paper submissions. It also authorizes the department to share report information with federal immigration agencies. Clergy are given limited exceptions for confidential confessions and communications protected by church doctrine or practice. The bill includes a $500 general fund appropriation to create a reporting website and provide paper forms at motor vehicle division offices.
In practical terms, HB 927 would add a new reporting obligation to Title 2, chapter 1 of Montana law and create a new misdemeanor offense tied to nonreporting. It would affect a wide range of licensed professionals and public employees by placing immigration-status reporting duties on them when they learn of unlawful presence in the course of their work. It would also create a new administrative role for the Department of Justice in collecting, documenting, and potentially forwarding reports to federal immigration authorities.
The bill’s overall sentiment in the Legislature appears negative. Although it passed the House Judiciary Committee 12-8, it failed on second reading in the House by a wide margin, 23-75, and ultimately died in process. The vote pattern suggests substantial opposition in the chamber, likely reflecting concerns about mandatory reporting, confidentiality, professional ethics, and the scope of the bill’s requirements.
The main points of contention are the breadth of the mandatory reporter list and the tension between the reporting duty and existing confidentiality obligations. The bill expressly overrides physician-patient and similar privileges in most cases, while carving out narrow clergy exceptions, which may have raised concerns among medical, education, child welfare, and religious groups. Another likely point of dispute is the bill’s potential to involve state professionals in immigration enforcement and the risk of discouraging people from seeking medical care, education, or social services.
HB 927 would add a new part to Title 2, chapter 1 of the Montana Code Annotated establishing mandatory reporting of individuals believed to be unlawfully present in the United States. It would impose reporting duties on specified professionals and officials, create misdemeanor penalties for noncompliance, require the Department of Justice to receive and process reports, and authorize information sharing with federal immigration agencies. The bill would also appropriate general fund money to support a reporting website and paper forms, thereby creating both new legal duties and a small administrative program within the Department of Justice.
The legislative sentiment appears largely unfavorable. The bill cleared House Judiciary on a 12-8 vote but was decisively rejected on second reading in the House, 23-75, and died in process. That vote pattern indicates that while a minority supported the measure as an immigration-enforcement tool, a substantial majority opposed it.
The most notable contention is the bill’s broad mandatory reporter scheme, which reaches health care providers, educators, child-care and social-service workers, law enforcement, and others who may encounter sensitive personal information. Opponents are likely concerned that the bill conflicts with professional confidentiality, discourages people from seeking care or services, and effectively turns state workers into immigration informants. Supporters likely view it as a way to improve immigration enforcement and require state-level reporting of unlawful presence. The clergy exceptions and the bill’s override of physician-patient and similar privileges also highlight tensions between religious confidentiality, professional ethics, and the reporting mandate.