WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1291

A BILL for an Act to provide for a legislative management study relating to immigration law.

69th Legislative Assembly (2025-26) Introduced by Jose Castaneda and 6 co-sponsors

ND HB1291 would bar private employers from hiring or continuing to employ unauthorized workers, with penalties and possible business-license sanctions.

Second reading, failed to pass, yeas 1 nays 44
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1291

Summary — HB 1291 (North Dakota)

A bill to address unauthorized employment and to direct a legislative study on immigration-related law

Purpose

HB 1291, as introduced for the Sixty‑ninth Legislative Assembly of North Dakota, was designed in two related strands: (1) to prohibit private employers from willfully hiring or continuing to employ workers who are unauthorized to work in the United States, and (2) (in a later amendment) to direct the Legislative Management to study federal and state immigration law issues during the 2025–26 interim. The bill went through multiple amendments and competing drafts; the versions contain different enforcement and penalty provisions.

Key provisions (multiple drafts/amendments included in the record)

  • Definitions

    • “Unauthorized worker” references the federal definition (8 U.S.C. § 1324a(h)(3)).
    • “Private employer” defined as any person transacting business in the state who employs one or more individuals.
    • “Business license” referenced as a license, permit, registration, or other authorization required to operate.

  • Employer prohibition (original/engrossed drafts)

    • Prohibits a private employer from willfully hiring, or continuing to employ knowing an individual has become, an unauthorized worker.

  • Enforcement authority (draft variations)

    • Some drafts empower the Labor Commissioner to investigate violations and, if evidence exists, refer cases to the Attorney General for prosecution.
    • Other drafts permit individuals to file alleged violations with the Attorney General, who may investigate and refer for prosecution.

  • Civil penalties and business‑license sanctions (draft variations)

    • One engrossed draft set civil penalties at up to $2,000 (first offense), $5,000 (second), $10,000 (third+).
    • An Industry, Business and Labor Committee version increased penalties and added business‑license sanctions: e.g., $5,000 plus suspension of business license (first offense); $10,000 plus six‑month suspension (second); $30,000 plus permanent revocation (third).

  • Legislative Management study (Senate amendment / later draft)

    • Directs the Legislative Management during the 2025–26 interim to consider studying:
    • Federal preemption of state/local immigration law.
    • A survey of ND and other states’ laws on unauthorized residents working in the U.S.
    • Issues related to unauthorized workers and local–federal law enforcement coordination.
    • Case law affecting states’ ability to enact immigration-related laws.
    • Solicits input from private sector/pro‑business groups, Attorney General’s office, and Secretary of State.
    • The study is to report findings, recommendations, and any implementing legislation to the Seventieth Legislative Assembly.

Who would be affected

  • Private employers doing business in North Dakota (particularly employers responsible for hiring and employment verification).
  • State enforcement agencies (Labor Commissioner, Attorney General) where investigative/ referral duties are assigned.
  • Businesses holding state business licenses (under drafts that impose license suspension/revocation).
  • The Legislative Management and policymakers (if study proceeds).

Procedural / timeline notes

  • Introduced: November 13, 2024 (ND sponsors: Reps. Heilman, Kasper, D. Johnston, Nehring, Morton, VanWinkle; Sen. Castaneda).
  • The bill underwent multiple amendments and competing language; one Senate amendment converted the measure into a study directive.
  • Reported procedural status in the provided materials: Second reading — failed to pass (yeas 1, nays 44).
  • Because the bill exists in multiple, inconsistent drafts in the record, the precise operative text depends on which engrossed/amended version would have prevailed; the version that would have become law was not enacted based on the reported second‑reading failure.

Note on document record

The supplied materials include multiple distinct bills from other states and alternate HB 1291 texts (Arkansas, Illinois, Hawaii, Maryland, Indiana, etc.). This summary focuses on the North Dakota HB 1291 materials in the record (employer prohibition / penalties and the Legislative Management study). If you want, I can produce separate concise summaries of the other HB 1291 variants from other states.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.