Bill shields schools, hospitals, courthouses from ICE raids—requires supervisor approval for enforce
H.R. 1061 — Protecting Sensitive Locations Act · Filed by Adriano Espaillat (D-NY) · 156 cosponsors · Introduced Feb 6, 2025 · Referred to committee
Your members of Congress
Enter a ZIP to see where your representative and both senators stood on this bill.
Looked up on this device — your ZIP is never stored on our servers.
What it does
This bill amends immigration law to restrict ICE and CBP enforcement actions within 1,000 feet of sensitive locations—schools, hospitals, courthouses, places of worship, polling places, and social services offices—except in genuine emergencies (imminent danger, terrorism, national security threats, or rare premeditated operations with written approval). Officers must consult supervisors if uncertain whether an emergency exists, conduct operations discreetly, and report all sensitive-location enforcement to DHS inspectors and Congress annually. Evidence from violations is barred from removal proceedings, and the alien can move to terminate the case.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a geographic and circumstantial restriction on where federal immigration officers can conduct enforcement, paired with procedural safeguards (supervisor approval, evidence exclusion) and transparency requirements (annual reporting to Congress and inspectors). It is not a deregulation, subsidy, or carve-out; it is a restraint on executive enforcement power in defined locations.
What the text implies
- The 1,000-foot buffer around sensitive locations is broad and may create de facto enforcement-free zones in urban areas where schools, hospitals, and social services cluster, potentially limiting ICE's ability to conduct operations in densely populated immigrant communities.
- The 'exigent circumstances' standard requires real-time supervisor consultation and affirmative confirmation, creating a procedural bottleneck that may slow or prevent enforcement actions even when officers believe circumstances justify them.
The full analysis lists 5 implications of this text.
Who it affects
Ordinary people—especially immigrants, their families, and vulnerable populations—gain concrete protections: access to healthcare, education, legal counsel, voting, and social services without fear of enforcement disruption. The bill does not shield anyone from lawful enforcement; it only restricts *where* and *when* it occurs, preserving citizens' ability to use essential public and private services.