A BILL to amend the Code of Virginia by adding a section numbered 19.2-81.7, relating to protected areas; certain federal immigration enforcement prohibited; penalty.
HB1440 would add a new section to the Code of Virginia creating “protected areas” where certain immigration-enforcement activity is restricted. The protected areas include state- or locally owned or operated hospitals and other health care facilities, schools and higher education institutions, offices of Commonwealth’s attorneys, and any other location designated by the Attorney General. The bill bars employees or agents of those protected areas from knowingly allowing entry into nonpublic areas for operations by federal or out-of-state authorities that seek to identify, arrest, or penalize a person for immigration-enforcement purposes.
The bill also makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to perform acts in protected areas for the purpose of federal immigration enforcement unless the person is acting under a judicial warrant or judicial subpoena. It preserves access for law-enforcement officers and federal immigration agents when there is a valid judicial warrant or exigent circumstances. In effect, the measure establishes a state-law restriction on immigration enforcement activity in sensitive public facilities while preserving warrant-based and emergency access.
HB1440 would affect state and local government facilities by limiting cooperation with certain federal or out-of-state immigration enforcement operations inside designated nonpublic areas. It would create new criminal penalties under Virginia law for violations by employees, agents, or other persons acting in protected areas, and it would authorize the Attorney General to expand the list of protected locations. The bill would directly affect hospitals, schools, public colleges and universities, and Commonwealth’s attorney offices, as well as law-enforcement and immigration-enforcement personnel operating in those spaces.
The available context suggests the bill was treated as a public-safety and immigration-policy measure and was incorporated by another bill in committee by voice vote, indicating at least procedural acceptance at that stage. No recorded floor votes or committee transcript debate are provided, so there is no detailed evidence of broader support or opposition in the supplied materials. Overall, the bill appears to have been advanced without documented recorded controversy in the available history.
The main points of contention likely concern immigration enforcement, state cooperation with federal authorities, and access to sensitive public facilities. Supporters would view the bill as protecting immigrants and preserving access to health care, education, and legal services without fear of enforcement actions. Opponents may argue that it restricts cooperation with federal immigration authorities, could interfere with enforcement operations, and creates uncertainty for facility employees and agents about when access is permitted. The bill’s use of misdemeanor penalties and the Attorney General’s authority to designate additional protected areas are likely the most notable pressure points.