Congress restricts ICE raids at schools, hospitals, churches, and polling places
S. 455 — Protecting Sensitive Locations Act · Filed by Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) · 33 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, churches, courthouses, polling places, and shelters—except in genuine emergencies (imminent danger, terrorism, hot pursuit). Officers must get supervisor approval if uncertain whether an emergency exists, report all sensitive-location enforcement to DHS inspectors, and face evidence exclusion if they violate the rule. Individuals arrested in violation can move to terminate their removal proceedings.
Why we flagged it
The bill's operative mechanism is a geographic and circumstantial restriction on DHS/ICE/CBP authority—not a deregulation, not a subsidy, but a procedural guardrail on executive enforcement power. It is a civil-liberties measure, not a market-relevant carve-out.
What the text implies
- The 1,000-foot buffer is measured from the physical boundary of sensitive locations, creating a de facto enforcement-free zone around schools, hospitals, and courthouses that may significantly reduce ICE/CBP operational reach in urban and suburban areas where sensitive locations cluster.
- The evidence-exclusion remedy (subsection (4)(A)) may result in dismissal of removal proceedings even for individuals with serious criminal histories if enforcement violated the rule, creating a potential loophole for deportation defense.
- Supervisor real-time consultation requirement (subsection (2)(C)) may create bottlenecks in field operations and generate a paper trail of approval decisions that could expose supervisors to liability or congressional scrutiny.
- Annual reporting requirements (subsections (6)–(8)) create a public record of all sensitive-location enforcement, potentially enabling civil-rights litigation and legislative oversight that could chill enforcement activity beyond the bill's stated intent.
- The definition of 'sensitive location' is expansive and includes 'any other locations specified by the Secretary of Homeland Security,' granting the executive branch unilateral power to expand the protected zone—a potential loophole if a future administration interprets this narrowly.
Section numbers refer to the bill text the analysis read — linked under Primary records below.
Who it affects
The bill protects ordinary citizens' access to essential services (healthcare, education, voting, worship, legal counsel) by restricting government enforcement in those spaces, and provides a remedy (evidence exclusion, termination of removal) for violations. The 1,000-foot buffer and exigent-circumstances carve-out balance enforcement needs against citizens' fundamental rights to move freely and access public institutions without fear of arrest.
Named in the bill
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Office of the Inspector General, DHS, Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, DHS, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, House Committee on Homeland Security, House Committee on the Judiciary
Where it stands
33 cosponsors: 32 Democrats, 1 Independents.
- Feb 6, 2025 — Introduced · Congress.gov: “Introduced in Senate”
- Feb 6, 2025 — Referred to Senate Committee on the Judiciary · Congress.gov: “Read twice and referred to the 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
12 lobbying clients named this bill on 18 disclosure filings across 3 quarters, Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. Those filings disclosed $4,050,167 in lobbying spend. A filing names 44 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 93% of bills with at least one filing.
Richard Blumenthal, the sponsor, reported $110,550 in PAC receipts in the 2026 cycle.
- Friends Committee on National Legislation — $3,000,000 on 3 filings
- American Federation of Teachers — $410,000 on 1 filing
- American Academy of Pediatrics — $320,000 on 1 filing
- American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists — $96,000 on 1 filing
- National Women's Law Center Action Fund — $75,000 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.
How this was measured
Analysis — Quorum's AI read the bill text published by Congress.gov (16,297 characters) on Sep 27, 2026. Section numbers in the findings refer to that text, linked below; transparency and hidden-provision scores are compared against the median of 15,316 analysed bills.
Status and sponsors — Congress.gov's bill record — actions, committee referrals and cosponsors — loaded nightly. The timeline shows status changes, not every procedural action.
Money — Senate Lobbying Disclosure Act filings whose specific-issue field names this bill for quarters ending Dec 2025 to Jun 2026. A filing's amount is reported whole beside the median number of bills a filing names; it is never divided across them. PAC receipts are FEC-reported contributions to the sponsor's candidate committee in the 2026 cycle.
As of — lobbying records through Jul 22, 2026 · page rendered 2026-09-27.
“Congress restricts ICE raids at schools, hospitals, churches, and polling places” QuorumCivic. https://share.quorumcivic.app/bill/119/s455 Report an error