No Special Immunity for Violating Our State Laws Act of 2026
HB8862, titled the “No Special Immunity for Violating Our State Laws Act of 2026,” would amend title 18 of the U.S. Code to limit immunity for certain federal law enforcement officers. Specifically, it creates a new section providing that a person acting in the performance of duties related to enforcing immigration laws is not immune from prosecution under state law if that person commits an act causing death or serious bodily injury to another person.
The bill is narrowly focused on federal officers engaged in immigration enforcement and targets only conduct resulting in death or serious bodily injury. It would add a new jurisdictional provision to chapter 211 of title 18 and make a corresponding clerical amendment to the table of sections. In practical terms, the bill would clarify that state criminal law can apply to certain serious acts by federal immigration-enforcement personnel, reducing any claimed immunity from state prosecution in those circumstances.
If enacted, the bill would alter federal criminal law by expressly waiving immunity for specified acts committed by federal law enforcement officers while enforcing immigration laws, allowing state prosecutors to pursue charges under state law for conduct causing death or serious bodily injury. It would affect federal immigration-enforcement personnel and potentially expand the reach of state criminal jurisdiction over conduct occurring during federal operations, while leaving other federal officers and other categories of conduct outside its scope.
The available context shows the bill was introduced and referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary, with no recorded votes or committee transcript debate provided. Based on the bill’s sponsorship and title, the measure appears to be framed as a accountability and state-law enforcement bill, suggesting support from sponsors concerned about immunity for federal officers. Because there is no recorded discussion or vote history in the provided materials, there is no documented opposition or bipartisan sentiment to assess from the record here.
The main point of contention is likely to be the balance between state criminal authority and federal immunity for officers carrying out federal immigration enforcement. Supporters would likely argue that federal officers should not be shielded from state prosecution when their actions cause death or serious bodily injury, while opponents may argue the bill could interfere with federal operations, create inconsistent state-by-state exposure for federal personnel, or raise federal supremacy and preemption concerns. The bill’s narrow focus on immigration enforcement and serious harm may also be a point of debate, since it targets a specific class of officers and conduct rather than a broader immunity rule.