Prohibits civil arrest in hospital, shelter, food bank, and crisis center settings; except to address an imminent safety situation or if they have an appropriate judicial warrant or judicial order.
This bill would amend New York’s Civil Rights Law to create a protected status against civil arrest for people who are attending, employed at, or otherwise lawfully present in hospitals, shelters, food banks, and crisis centers. It bars civil arrests on those premises unless officers have a judicial warrant or order, and it expressly states that administrative warrants and immigration detainers are not enough to justify an arrest or detention there. The bill is framed as the “ICE ban in hospitals and shelters act,” signaling that it is aimed primarily at limiting immigration enforcement actions in sensitive locations.
The bill also defines key terms such as “judicial warrant or order,” “administrative warrant,” and “immigration detainer,” and it creates enforcement mechanisms for violations. A person whose rights are violated could seek equitable and declaratory relief, and the attorney general could bring an action on behalf of the state. Successful plaintiffs could recover costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, and willful violations are deemed unlawful and may constitute false imprisonment. The act would take effect immediately if enacted.
If enacted, the bill would add a new section to the Civil Rights Law establishing legal protections against civil arrest in specified health and social service settings. It would restrict the use of immigration detainers and administrative warrants at hospitals, shelters, food banks, and crisis centers, while preserving arrests supported by a judicial warrant or order. The measure would create a private right of action and authorize attorney general enforcement, potentially exposing violators to injunctive relief, declaratory relief, costs, and attorney’s fees, and it could affect federal immigration enforcement practices in New York at these locations.
Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be strongly protective of immigrants and other vulnerable individuals using essential services, with a clear policy goal of keeping sensitive locations free from civil arrest activity. No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented legislative debate or recorded support/opposition in the provided materials. The framing suggests the sponsor views the bill as a civil liberties and public-safety measure, especially for people seeking medical care, shelter, or food assistance.
The main point of contention is likely to be the bill’s restriction on immigration enforcement, particularly its rejection of administrative warrants and immigration detainers as sufficient authority for arrest or detention in the covered settings. Supporters would likely emphasize access to healthcare, shelter, and food services without fear of enforcement action, while opponents may argue that the bill interferes with federal immigration operations or public safety enforcement. The bill’s broad coverage of hospitals, shelters, food banks, and crisis centers, along with the false-imprisonment language and attorney’s-fee remedy, may also draw concern from law enforcement and facility operators about liability and implementation.