In riot, disorderly conduct and related offenses, providing for civil immigration arrests in houses of worship.
HB2376 would add a new section to Pennsylvania’s Crimes and Offenses Code prohibiting federal, state, and local law enforcement from detaining, arresting, or otherwise taking a person into custody on the property of a house of worship for immigration-enforcement purposes, unless the officer is acting in an official capacity and has a judicial warrant on hand that clearly identifies the person to be arrested. The bill defines “house of worship” broadly to include churches, synagogues, mosques, and other religious facilities, and defines “immigration enforcement” to include efforts tied to federal civil immigration law and certain federal criminal immigration offenses related to presence, entry, reentry, document fraud, and removal.
The bill also requires an arresting officer who makes an immigration-related arrest on house-of-worship property to provide the relevant warrant documentation to any person who requests to review it. In addition, it bars state or local law enforcement from using state-appropriated money or resources to conduct immigration enforcement. Violations would carry a civil penalty of $10,000 per offense, payable to the Commonwealth, and the act would take effect immediately.
If enacted, HB2376 would create a new state-law restriction on immigration enforcement activity at religious sites and would add a civil penalty mechanism to enforce that restriction. It would affect state and local law enforcement agencies most directly, while also limiting the use of state funds for immigration-related enforcement actions. The bill does not appear to alter federal immigration law itself, but it would regulate how Pennsylvania and local authorities may participate in or support such enforcement within houses of worship.
The available context shows no recorded committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented floor debate or formal vote sentiment to assess. Based on the bill’s sponsors and its subject matter, the measure appears aligned with protections for religious worship and immigrant communities, but the text itself is likely to draw concern from those who favor broader cooperation with federal immigration enforcement or who object to restricting law-enforcement discretion. The main point of contention is the balance between sanctuary-like protections for houses of worship and the ability of law enforcement to carry out immigration-related arrests when a judicial warrant exists.
HB2376 would amend Title 18 by creating a new offense section that limits immigration-enforcement arrests on house-of-worship property and imposes a civil penalty for violations. It would constrain state and local law enforcement conduct, require disclosure of warrant documentation upon request, and prohibit the use of state-appropriated funds or resources for immigration enforcement. The bill would not change federal immigration law, but it would add a state-level restriction affecting how Pennsylvania agencies and officers may participate in immigration enforcement near religious institutions.
No committee discussion or vote record is provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment in the available materials. The bill’s sponsorship suggests support from lawmakers concerned with protecting religious spaces and immigrant communities, while the subject matter indicates likely opposition from those favoring stronger immigration enforcement cooperation. Overall, the measure appears to be framed as a protective, civil-rights-oriented bill rather than a punitive enforcement measure.
The central controversy is whether houses of worship should be treated as protected spaces where immigration arrests are generally barred absent a judicial warrant. Supporters are likely to emphasize religious freedom, community trust, and the need to keep worship spaces free from immigration enforcement activity. Opponents are likely to focus on law-enforcement authority, public safety, and the practical impact of restricting state and local participation in immigration enforcement, especially where a judicial warrant exists. The bill’s ban on using state resources for immigration enforcement and its $10,000 civil penalty are additional likely flashpoints.