Providing for Federal immigration enforcement in State facilities.
SB1193 would create a new chapter in Title 29 governing federal immigration enforcement in state facilities and certain local facilities. The bill generally prohibits a civil immigration arrest from being carried out inside a state facility, inside a facility owned or leased by a local political subdivision, or within 1,000 feet of such a facility unless the arresting authority presents a valid judicial warrant or judicial order authorizing the arrest and detention of the named individual. It also includes a narrow exception for civil immigration arrests directly related to a judicial or administrative proceeding occurring within the facility.
The bill defines key terms such as “affected State entity,” “state facility,” “judicial warrant,” and “judicial order,” and it applies to Commonwealth agencies under the Governor’s executive authority, political subdivisions, and certain public authorities and boards. If a violation occurs, the bill creates a private right of action for the affected individual against the state entity or its officers, employees, or agents who knowingly or recklessly allowed the violation. Available remedies include actual or general damages of at least $500, emotional distress damages, punitive damages, attorney fees and costs, injunctive relief, and other equitable relief. The bill also states that governmental immunity under Pennsylvania’s actions-against-Commonwealth and local-party statutes would not bar such claims, and it imposes a two-year statute of limitations.
The overall sentiment reflected by the bill’s sponsorship is protective of immigrants and skeptical of civil immigration enforcement in or near public facilities. Because there are no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented floor or committee debate to gauge broader legislative sentiment. The bill’s structure suggests a rights-and-liability approach, emphasizing limits on enforcement authority and remedies for affected individuals rather than cooperation with federal immigration enforcement.
The main point of contention likely concerns the bill’s restriction on civil immigration arrests near public buildings and its requirement for a judicial warrant or order, which could be viewed by supporters as a due-process safeguard and by opponents as an obstacle to immigration enforcement. Another likely issue is the private right of action and waiver of immunity, which exposes state and local entities, as well as their personnel, to damages and litigation risk. The 1,000-foot buffer zone and the inclusion of local facilities and certain public authorities may also raise operational and legal concerns for agencies that manage public buildings and law-enforcement interactions.
SB1193 would amend Title 29 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes by adding a new chapter that limits when civil immigration arrests may occur in and around state facilities and certain local government facilities. It would create enforceable duties for affected state entities and their personnel, authorize civil lawsuits for violations, and override state sovereign and governmental immunity defenses for claims brought under the chapter. The bill would therefore affect Commonwealth agencies, political subdivisions, and specified public authorities, while also potentially altering how state and local facilities interact with federal immigration authorities.
No committee discussion or vote history is provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate to summarize. Based on the bill text and sponsorship, the measure appears to be framed as a civil-rights and due-process protection for immigrants, with an emphasis on limiting immigration enforcement in public facilities. The absence of recorded opposition or support in the supplied materials means broader sentiment cannot be measured, but the bill’s design suggests it would likely draw support from immigration advocates and resistance from proponents of stronger immigration enforcement.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s restriction on civil immigration arrests without a judicial warrant or order, especially the 1,000-foot exclusion zone around state and local facilities, and the exception only for proceedings directly related to matters occurring in the facility. Opponents may argue that these provisions interfere with federal immigration enforcement and create uncertainty for law enforcement and facility operators. Supporters are likely to focus on preventing warrantless arrests in sensitive public spaces and ensuring accountability through the private right of action, damages, and attorney-fee provisions. The waiver of immunity and exposure of public entities and employees to suit are also likely to be disputed.