SB 136, titled the Enforcement Activities Amendments, would create new restrictions on certain law enforcement conduct in Utah, particularly around immigration enforcement and officer identification. The bill prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from assisting federal immigration authorities with immigration enforcement operations in sensitive locations or houses of worship, except in limited circumstances such as imminent threats, requests from the location’s operator, or when acting under a federal criminal warrant or exigent circumstances. It also defines “sensitive location” for this purpose and states that conflicting federal directives are subject to Utah’s Constitutional Sovereignty Act.
The bill also regulates the use of facial coverings by law enforcement officers. It generally bars officers from wearing masks or other coverings that conceal identity while performing official duties, with exceptions for tactical units, undercover work, certain accommodations, safety gear, and agency policies. Beginning July 1, 2026, agencies would be required to create, maintain, and publicly post written facial covering policies that emphasize transparency, accountability, and limited use. The bill further creates a class C misdemeanor for intentional violations and allows civil damages, including a minimum statutory award, when an officer knowingly violates the mask restrictions and commits certain torts.
In addition, SB 136 expands restrictions on federal immigration actions in certain government-run sensitive locations. It requires governmental entities operating public libraries, government-run health care facilities, courthouses, and certain service locations to deny access to nonpublic areas to individuals seeking to conduct immigration enforcement operations, unless they present a valid federal court warrant or there are imminent threats or exigent circumstances. The bill excludes correctional and detention facilities from this sensitive-location definition.
The bill’s impact on state law would be significant for law enforcement agencies, local governments, and officers. It would add new statutory duties, new policy requirements, criminal penalties, and civil liability exposure, while also creating a state-law framework limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement in specified settings. It would likely affect agency training, operational planning, and interactions with federal immigration authorities, especially in public-facing facilities and during tactical or undercover operations.
The general sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears mixed to negative, at least at the committee stage, because the bill was tabled in Senate committee by a 6-3 vote. No committee transcript is available, so there is no recorded debate to show detailed arguments. The main points of contention are likely the bill’s limits on cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, its restrictions on officer facial coverings, and the new criminal and civil penalties for officers and agencies. Supporters would likely view the bill as promoting transparency, accountability, and protection of sensitive spaces, while opponents may see it as interfering with law enforcement discretion, officer safety, and federal-state coordination.
SB 136 would enact new provisions in Utah Code governing law enforcement assistance to federal immigration operations, officer use of facial coverings, agency policy requirements, and access rules for certain government-operated sensitive locations. It would create new duties for law enforcement agencies to publish mask policies, impose a class C misdemeanor for intentional violations of the mask ban, and authorize civil damages in specified misconduct cases. It would also restrict access by immigration enforcement personnel to nonpublic areas of public libraries, government health facilities, courthouses, and certain service locations, subject to narrow exceptions.
The bill’s available legislative history suggests limited support at the committee stage, as it was tabled by a 6-3 Senate committee vote. Because there are no transcript excerpts, the record does not show detailed floor or committee debate. Based on the bill’s contents, supporters likely frame it as a transparency and civil-liberties measure, while opponents likely view it as an unnecessary constraint on law enforcement and immigration enforcement coordination.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s prohibition on local and state assistance to federal immigration operations in sensitive locations and houses of worship, the requirement that officers generally not wear facial coverings, and the creation of criminal and civil penalties for violations. Law enforcement agencies may object to the operational burden, safety concerns, and potential conflicts with federal directives, while supporters may argue the bill is needed to increase accountability, prevent intimidation, and protect vulnerable locations. The inclusion of the Utah Constitutional Sovereignty Act as a response to conflicting federal directives also signals possible state-federal legal tension.