A Democratic bill with 32 Democratic cosponsors · See all 33 cosponsors
Last activity — Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
In committee
Introduced and handed to a committee in the chamber it started in.
The committee holds it, and most bills are never heard from again. A hearing or a committee vote would be news; silence is the usual outcome, and it kills the bill without anyone voting against it.
Its path through Congress
- Introduced
- In Committee
What this bill would do
The Protecting Sensitive Locations Act limits immigration enforcement actions within 1,000 feet of designated sensitive locations. These actions are generally prohibited unless exigent circumstances exist or a rare, premeditated arrest of a high-threat individual is approved in writing. The bill requires officers to act discreetly and mandates annual training for supervising officials. It also establishes strict reporting requirements to the Department of Homeland Security and Congress. Additionally, it provides legal remedies for individuals if enforcement actions violate these rules.
Yes· 3 of 27
- Scored +9
Would immigrants be better off under this?
Provides significant protection and legal recourse against enforcement at essential service locations.
- Scored +8
Would children be better off under this?
Protects schools, playgrounds, and childcare facilities from enforcement actions.
- Scored +8
Would students be better off under this?
Protects schools, universities, and school buses from enforcement actions.
The opposite
No question was scored the opposite.
Who it would affect, and how
Potential Positive Impacts for People
-
Increased Access to Essential Services: By prohibiting enforcement actions within 1,000 feet of sensitive locations—including schools, healthcare facilities, and places of worship—the bill ensures individuals can access these services without fear. (Section 2(a)(2))
-
Protection of Vulnerable Groups: The bill specifically protects locations that assist victims of crime, pregnant women, children, and individuals with disabilities. (Section 2(a)(9)(F)(viii))
-
Legal Recourse for Violations: If an enforcement action violates these rules, the subject of the proceeding can file a motion to terminate the removal proceeding, and information from that action cannot be used as evidence. (Section 2(a)(4))
-
Greater Accountability: The Secretary of Homeland Security must report enforcement actions at sensitive locations to the Office of the Inspector General and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. (Section 2(a)(6))
Potential Negative Impacts for People
-
Security Risks in Rare Cases: While the bill limits enforcement, it allows for premeditated arrests of terrorist suspects or those posing an extraordinary danger to public safety, which may still involve high-risk operations in public areas. (Section 2(a)(3)(D))
-
Potential for Delayed Action: Officers must cease enforcement and consult supervisors in real-time if they are uncertain if exigent circumstances exist, which could potentially delay urgent responses. (Section 2(a)(2)(C))
Groups and Interests Ranking
Every group the model scored this bill for, from -10 to +10. Tap or hover a score for the reason it gave.
- Demographic And Interest Groups
- Would immigrants be better off under this? — Provides significant protection and legal recourse against enforcement at essential service locations. Would children be better off under this? — Protects schools, playgrounds, and childcare facilities from enforcement actions. Would students be better off under this? — Protects schools, universities, and school buses from enforcement actions. Would Hispanic Americans be better off under this? — Significantly reduces the risk of enforcement at essential service locations for immigrant communities. Would households on low incomes be better off under this? — Protects food banks, pantries, and public assistance offices as sensitive locations. Would people with disabilities be better off under this? — Explicitly protects facilities serving persons with significant physical or mental disabilities. Would women be better off under this? — Protects domestic violence shelters and facilities for pregnant women. Would union members be better off under this? — Protects union halls from immigration enforcement. Would people in their twenties and thirties be better off under this? — Protects postsecondary schools and vocational training sites. Would people in middle age be better off under this? — Increases access to healthcare and public services for those with immigration concerns. Would retired people be better off under this? — Protects access to medical facilities and Social Security offices. Would people in rural areas be better off under this? — Protects rural clinics and places of worship. Would people over 65 be better off under this? — Increases access to medical facilities and Social Security offices. Would people in cities be better off under this? — Higher concentration of protected sensitive locations in urban areas.
- Social Issues And Justice
- Does this protect the freedom to practise a religion? — Protects places of worship and religious ceremonies from immigration enforcement actions. Does this make casting a ballot easier in practice? — Designates polling places as sensitive locations, reducing deterrence for voters. Does this expand the rights of people with disabilities? — Specifically protects locations assisting individuals with significant physical or mental disabilities. Does this protect what people are allowed to say in public life? — Protects public demonstrations, marches, and rallies as sensitive locations. Is this likely to reduce homelessness? — Protects homeless shelters and food banks as sensitive locations, ensuring access to survival services.
- Healthcare
- Does this make health care easier to get in general? — Restricts enforcement within 1,000 feet of hospitals and clinics, increasing safety for patients seeking care. Does this make mental health care easier to get? — Designates mental healthcare facilities as sensitive locations, encouraging access without fear of enforcement. Does this do more about addiction and overdose deaths? — Protects drug and alcohol counseling and treatment facilities as sensitive locations.
- Governance And Ideology
- Does this protect the right to fair treatment by the courts? — Provides legal remedy to terminate removal proceedings if enforcement violated these sensitive location rules. Does this make what the government does easier for the public to see? — Mandates strict reporting to DHS IG and Congress regarding enforcement actions at sensitive locations. Does this protect the individual right to speak freely? — Protects the ability to participate in public demonstrations without immigration enforcement.
- Environment Energy And Infrastructure
- Does this improve help for people hit by a disaster? — Protects disaster response sites and family reunification centers as sensitive locations.
- Economy And Finance
- Does this strengthen the rights of workers to organise? — Protects union halls as sensitive locations, reducing the risk of immigration enforcement during union activities.
- 9/14/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 6/8/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/5/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/29/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/27/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 1/15/2026
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 11/18/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 9/2/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 4/9/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 3/5/2025
- 1 Cosponsor added.
- 2/13/2025
- 2 Cosponsors added.
- 2/6/2025
- Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
- 21 Cosponsors added.
- Introduced in Senate
2 bills Congress.gov lists as related to this one — companions in the other chamber, earlier versions, and bills this one absorbed or was folded into.
Angela AlsobrooksDemocrat · Maryland
Tammy BaldwinDemocrat · Wisconsin
Michael BennetDemocrat · Colorado
Cory BookerDemocrat · New Jersey
Lisa Blunt RochesterDemocrat · Delaware
Christopher CoonsDemocrat · Delaware
Catherine Cortez MastoDemocrat · Nevada
Richard DurbinDemocrat · Illinois
Tammy DuckworthDemocrat · Illinois
Kirsten GillibrandDemocrat · New York
John HickenlooperDemocrat · Colorado
Mazie HironoDemocrat · Hawaii
Martin HeinrichDemocrat · New Mexico
Amy KlobucharDemocrat · Minnesota
Andy KimDemocrat · New Jersey
Ben LujánDemocrat · New Mexico
Edward MarkeyDemocrat · Massachusetts
Patty MurrayDemocrat · Washington
Christopher MurphyDemocrat · Connecticut
Jeff MerkleyDemocrat · Oregon
Alex PadillaDemocrat · California
Jacky RosenDemocrat · Nevada
Bernie SandersIndependent · Vermont
Adam SchiffDemocrat · California
Jeanne ShaheenDemocrat · New Hampshire
Brian SchatzDemocrat · Hawaii
Tina SmithDemocrat · Minnesota
Chris Van HollenDemocrat · Maryland
Ron WydenDemocrat · Oregon
Raphael WarnockDemocrat · Georgia
Peter WelchDemocrat · Vermont
Sheldon WhitehouseDemocrat · Rhode Island
Elizabeth WarrenDemocrat · Massachusetts