An Act to amend and reenact §§ 8.01-327.1, 8.01-327.2, 22.1-279.8, 24.2-604, 24.2-671, and 24.2-802.1 of the Code of Virginia and to amend the Code of Virginia by adding in Article 5 of Chapter 8 of Title 8.01 sections numbered 8.01-327.3 and 8.01-327.4, by adding a section numbered 19.2-81.7, and by adding in Article 2 of Chapter 8 of Title 23.1 a section numbered 23.1-808.3, relating to prohibiting certain acts in furtherance of federal immigration enforcement in certain protected areas; exceptions; penalties.
HB650 would restrict civil immigration arrests in specified sensitive locations unless the arresting person has a valid judicial warrant in hand. The protected locations include state and local courthouses, hospitals and similar health care facilities, schools at all levels including public higher education, offices of Commonwealth’s Attorneys, and polling places or election-related proceedings. The bill is framed as a limitation on where civil immigration enforcement may occur, rather than a general prohibition on immigration arrests.
The bill also creates a two-year limitations period for civil actions arising from civil immigration arrests made in violation of the section, while preserving qualified immunity. In the broader bill caption and related substitute context, HB650 is part of a larger package addressing restrictions on certain acts in furtherance of federal immigration enforcement in protected areas, with additional provisions elsewhere in the bill affecting other code sections and enforcement-related penalties.
HB650 would add a new section to Title 8.01 of the Code of Virginia governing civil immigration arrests in protected spaces. It would affect immigration enforcement officers and any other persons with lawful authority to make civil immigration arrests by requiring a judicial warrant before arrests in the listed locations, and it would create a potential civil remedy for violations subject to a two-year filing deadline. The bill would also interact with state and local institutions such as courts, schools, health care facilities, election offices, and prosecutors’ offices by limiting enforcement activity in those settings.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote breakdown, but the bill’s status indicates it was vetoed by the Governor. Based on the bill text and substitute language, the measure appears to have been supported by patrons seeking to create protected zones around public institutions and limit immigration enforcement in those spaces. The veto suggests the proposal was ultimately not accepted at the executive level, even though the text reflects a policy approach aimed at shielding sensitive locations from civil immigration arrests.
The main point of contention is the balance between state-level protections for sensitive locations and the authority of federal or other immigration-enforcement actors to conduct civil immigration arrests. Supporters would likely view the bill as protecting access to schools, hospitals, courthouses, election sites, and prosecutors’ offices, while opponents would likely argue it interferes with immigration enforcement and public safety operations. The inclusion of a civil cause of action, a limitations period, and the preservation of qualified immunity also suggests potential disputes over liability and enforcement mechanics.