Pennsylvania House Bill HB1693

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 7/2/25
• Refer: 7/2/25

Caption

Providing for immigration compliance and public safety.

Summary

HB1693 would add a new chapter to Title 29 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes titled “Immigration Compliance and Public Safety.” The bill is aimed at requiring state and local entities to cooperate with federal immigration authorities when they have custody of an individual subject to an immigration detainer request. It defines key terms such as “immigration detainer request,” “municipal official,” “law enforcement agency,” and “individual adversely affected,” and it creates a private cause of action for people harmed by a municipal official’s failure to comply with the bill’s requirements. Under the bill, municipal officials would be prohibited from adopting or enforcing policies that block or materially limit law enforcement officers, corrections officers, parole officers, judicial officers, or judicial staff from complying with federal immigration detainer requests. It also requires agencies and officials to honor detainer requests, notify the person being held that the detention is based on a federal immigration request, and provide immigration-status information requested by federal agencies. The bill includes an exception for individuals who prove U.S. citizenship or lawful immigration status, and it grants immunity to officials who in good faith rely on federal immigration information.

Impact

HB1693 would significantly affect how municipalities and local justice-system personnel interact with federal immigration enforcement. It would preempt local policies that restrict cooperation with immigration detainers, override certain municipal discretion, and expose municipal officials to civil liability, including actual damages and potentially punitive and other damages, if an adversely affected person proves harm from noncompliance. The bill would also create new duties for local agencies and officials to share custody and status information with federal immigration authorities, while limiting liability for good-faith compliance.

Sentiment

The available record shows no committee transcript or recorded votes, so there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge sentiment directly. Based on the bill’s sponsorship and framing, the measure appears to be supported by lawmakers concerned with immigration enforcement and public safety, but the absence of discussion and vote history means the level of support or opposition cannot be measured from the provided materials.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the bill’s restriction on local “sanctuary” or noncooperation policies and its requirement that municipalities and officials comply with federal immigration detainer requests. Opponents would likely focus on civil liberties, local control, due process, and the risk of detaining people based on federal requests rather than judicial warrants, while supporters would emphasize public safety, cooperation with federal authorities, and accountability for local officials who refuse to comply. The bill’s private right of action and damages provisions also create potential legal and fiscal concerns for municipalities and their officials.