To amend sections 9.63, 4501.06, 5747.50, 5747.502, 5747.51, and 5747.53 and to enact sections 9.631, 9.632, 9.633, and 5747.504 of the Revised Code to require state and local authorities to cooperate with the federal government in the enforcement of immigration laws, to prescribe funding reductions for noncompliance, to name this act the Protecting Ohio Communities Act, and to declare an emergency.
HB26, titled the Protecting Ohio Communities Act, would require state and local officials and law enforcement agencies to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement and certain homeland security-related requests. It prohibits local governments from adopting sanctuary-style policies that materially hinder cooperation with federal immigration or terrorism investigations, and it directs state and local employees not to unreasonably refuse lawful federal requests for assistance. The bill also requires law enforcement agencies to participate in federal immigration status-check programs, report certain arrestees believed to be unlawfully present, detain individuals when lawfully requested by federal authorities, and otherwise cooperate with federal immigration officials.
The bill further requires state and local entities that administer public benefits to verify immigration eligibility through the federal SAVE program when applicable, and it bars local policies that restrict inquiries into immigration status or the sharing of immigration-status information with government agencies. It creates a complaint and enforcement process through the attorney general, who would investigate alleged noncompliance and report findings to the treasurer of state and tax commissioner. If a county, township, municipal corporation, or related law enforcement agency is found out of compliance, the bill authorizes reductions in local government fund distributions and homeland security funding until compliance is restored. It also creates a new Ohio highway and transportation safety fund to receive certain withheld payments and use them for highway patrol and traffic-law enforcement costs.
HB26 would amend several sections of the Revised Code governing local government finance, including the local government fund distribution formulas in sections 5747.50, 5747.51, and 5747.53, and it would add new sections establishing immigration-cooperation requirements and penalties. It also adds a separate funding penalty for so-called sanctuary jurisdictions under new section 5747.504, reducing monthly local government fund payments by 10 percent upon notice from the attorney general. The bill would therefore affect counties, townships, municipal corporations, law enforcement agencies, and state or local benefit-administering entities by tying compliance with immigration-related directives to state funding.
The general sentiment reflected in the bill text is strongly supportive of immigration enforcement cooperation and strongly opposed to sanctuary policies. The findings and emergency clause frame the measure as necessary for public safety, statewide consistency, and compliance with federal law. Because the bill was only introduced and had no recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials, there is no recorded legislative debate to indicate broader support or opposition beyond the bill’s own stated policy position.
The main point of contention inherent in the bill is the use of state funding reductions to compel local compliance with federal immigration enforcement. Potential critics would likely focus on the bill’s limits on local policymaking, its treatment of local officials who express disagreement with federal immigration policy, and the financial penalties imposed on local governments. Supporters would likely emphasize public safety, uniform enforcement, and the bill’s reliance on federal immigration law and federal information-sharing programs. The bill also raises practical concerns for local governments and law enforcement agencies about implementation, reporting, and the scope of required cooperation with federal authorities.
HB26 would substantially revise Ohio law by creating mandatory immigration-cooperation duties for state and local officials, law enforcement agencies, and benefit-administering entities, while also authorizing state-level financial penalties for noncompliance. It would amend existing Revised Code provisions governing local government fund distributions and public safety funding, and it would add new enforcement mechanisms through the attorney general, tax commissioner, and treasurer of state. Counties, townships, municipal corporations, and certain local agencies would be directly affected by the new reporting, cooperation, and funding-reduction requirements.
The bill’s tone and findings are strongly pro-enforcement and anti-sanctuary, presenting the measure as a public-safety and statewide-uniformity bill. No committee testimony or votes were provided, so there is no recorded external legislative sentiment in the materials beyond the bill’s own framing. Based on the text alone, the proposal appears designed to appeal to supporters of stricter immigration enforcement and to draw opposition from local-government and civil-liberties advocates.
The most notable contention is the bill’s use of state funding leverage to force local compliance with federal immigration enforcement, including reductions in local government fund payments and homeland security funding. Another likely point of dispute is the prohibition on local policies that limit cooperation or even express disagreement with federal immigration or terrorism policy, which may be viewed as constraining local autonomy and speech. The bill’s requirements for immigration-status inquiries, detention, and information-sharing could also be controversial among local officials, law enforcement agencies, and advocates concerned about community trust, due process, and administrative burden.