Bill shields schools, hospitals, courthouses from ICE raids—requires supervisor approval for enforce

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.
• Evidence exclusion (paragraph 4) means violations of the sensitive-location rule render the entire enforcement action's fruits inadmissible in removal proceedings, creating a powerful incentive for strict compliance but also a potential avenue for case dismissal on procedural grounds.
• Annual reporting requirements to Congress and the DHS Inspector General create a public record of all sensitive-location enforcement, enabling legislative and public oversight of ICE/CBP conduct—a transparency mechanism that may deter aggressive enforcement in these zones.
• The bill does not define 'collateral arrests' or limit them, so officers may still arrest bystanders encountered during lawful enforcement, though the reporting requirement will expose the frequency and justification for such arrests.

Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.

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. The procedural safeguards (supervisor consultation, discretion requirements, evidence exclusion

Named in the bill

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), DHS Office of the Inspector General, DHS Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, House Committee on Homeland Security, House Committee on the Judiciary

Where it stands

157 cosponsors: 157 Democrats.

• Feb 6, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in House”
• Feb 6, 2025 — Referred to House Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary”

Dates and quoted wording are Congress.gov's action record; the timeline shows status changes, not every procedural step.

Money around this bill

14 lobbying clients named this bill on 21 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $5,805,663 in lobbying spend. A filing names 45 bills on average, so that figure is what each filing reported, not a share belonging to this bill.

More lobbying clients named this bill than 94% of bills with at least one filing.

Adriano Espaillat, the sponsor, reported $497,550 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.

• Friends Committee on National Legislation — $3,000,000 on 3 filings
• American Academy of Family Physicians — $1,715,904 on 2 filings
• American Federation of Teachers — $410,000 on 1 filing
• National Right to Work Committee — $240,000 on 1 filing
• Zero to Three: National Center for Infants, Toddlers, and Families — $119,592 on 1 filing

Lobbying Disclosure Act filings through Jul 22, 2026. A filing shows who paid to lobby on a bill it names, not what changed.