Requires the Department of Justice to consult with the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Advancement when the department develops, reviews or updates model policies intended to limit immigration enforcement at public facilities.
SB 1594 directs the Oregon Attorney General to publish model policies aimed at limiting immigration enforcement at public schools, public health facilities, courthouses, public shelters, and other public facilities operated by public bodies, to the fullest extent allowed by state and federal law. The bill also requires the Department of Justice to consult with the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Advancement when developing, reviewing, or updating those model policies.
For K-12 public schools, the bill adds more specific requirements to the model policy. The Attorney General must also consult with organizations representing school board members and other public school professionals, and the policy must include procedures for verifying warrants or court orders, superintendent-level review and approval of responses to immigration enforcement requests, encouragement to consult legal counsel, compliance with existing Oregon laws, and recommendations for employee responses. School districts, education service districts, and public charter schools must provide the applicable model policies to employees. Other public bodies and certain contractors are encouraged, but not required, to adopt similar policies.
The bill amends ORS 180.810 and creates a new, more detailed framework for how Oregon public institutions should respond to immigration enforcement activity. It also includes a conflict-repeal provision tied to Senate Bill 1538 and makes the K-12-specific amendments operative on July 1, 2026. The act takes effect immediately upon passage because it declares an emergency.
Overall, the sentiment reflected in the vote history suggests majority support, but not unanimity. The bill passed the Senate and House on third reading, yet the recorded votes also show a failed motion to substitute a minority report in the Senate, indicating meaningful opposition during the legislative process. The committee votes were close enough to suggest some division, but the final floor votes show the measure ultimately secured enough support to pass.
The main points of contention appear to center on immigration policy, the role of public institutions in limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, and the added obligations for school districts and education service districts. Supporters appear to favor clearer protections and standardized procedures for schools and other public facilities, while opponents likely objected to restricting immigration enforcement access or to the administrative and legal compliance burdens placed on public bodies, especially schools.
The bill amends ORS 180.810 to require the Oregon Department of Justice to publish and update model policies limiting immigration enforcement at specified public facilities and to consult with the Office of Immigrant and Refugee Advancement in that process. It adds mandatory K-12-specific policy elements and requires school districts, education service districts, and public charter schools to distribute the model policies to employees. The measure also interacts with and may repeal a provision of Senate Bill 1538 if that bill becomes law, and the K-12 amendments become operative July 1, 2026.
The bill appears to have had generally favorable support from legislative majorities, as shown by passage in both chambers, but it was not without opposition. The failed Senate motion to substitute a minority report and the split committee votes indicate that some lawmakers objected to the bill’s approach. The final outcome suggests the majority viewed the measure as a needed update to Oregon’s immigration-related public facility policies, particularly for schools and other sensitive locations.
The most notable contention concerns whether Oregon should further limit immigration enforcement activity at public schools and other public facilities, and how far the state should go in directing public bodies to respond. Critics likely focused on the bill’s restrictions on enforcement access and the added procedural requirements for schools, while supporters emphasized protecting immigrant communities and creating consistent, legally vetted procedures. The school-specific provisions, including superintendent review, warrant verification, and legal consultation, also appear to have been a focal point because they impose more detailed operational duties on education agencies.