Summary — HB 4339 (County Law Enforcement Protection Act)
Status and sponsor
- Sponsor: Rep. Joseph G. Pavlov
- Introduced / filed: March 11, 2025 (formal House introduction recorded April 17, 2025)
- House action: Passed House (substitute H‑1) May 1, 2025 (Roll Call #75: Yeas 58, Nays 48); given immediate effect by the House.
- Current status: Referred to Senate Committee on Government Operations.
- Companion: SB 1906
Purpose
- To prohibit counties and county-created or county-funded entities from adopting or enforcing any law, ordinance, policy, or rule that limits or forbids peace officers or county officials/employees from communicating or cooperating with appropriate federal officials about an individual’s immigration status.
Key definitions
- “County” includes the county board of commissioners, any board/department/commission/council/agency created or primarily funded by a county, and county officers/officials.
Core provisions
- Prohibition: Counties may not enact or enforce any law, ordinance, policy, or rule that limits a peace officer or county official/employee from communicating or cooperating with appropriate federal immigration authorities regarding immigration status. Any conflicting county measure is declared void and unenforceable.
- Compliance deadline: Counties with existing conflicting measures must bring them into compliance within 60 days after the act’s effective date.
- Enforcement routes:
- A resident of the county may (beginning 61 days after the effective date) bring a civil action in the circuit court of the judicial district where the county is located, or file a complaint with the Attorney General (AG) on a prescribed form.
- The AG may receive and investigate complaints and is required (beginning 61 days after the effective date) to bring an action in circuit court against a county that enacts or enforces a violating measure.
- County cooperation: Counties must cooperate with AG investigations.
- Court remedies: If the court finds a violation, it must:
- Issue an injunction preventing enforcement;
- Order amendment or repeal of the law/policy;
- Award actual damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees to the challenger.
If the county prevails, the court must award costs and reasonable attorney fees to the county.
Fiscal and operational impacts
- Department of Attorney General: Potential additional costs depending on complaint volume and litigation; House Fiscal Agency estimates an additional attorney FTE would cost roughly $200,000 annually.
- Courts: Indeterminate potential increase in circuit court caseloads and related administrative costs.
- Related fiscal measure (separate bill HB 4342): Proposes withholding certain state revenue sharing payments to cities, villages, townships, or counties that enact or enforce violating measures (beginning FY 2025–26) — not part of HB 4339 but intended to be enacted alongside HB 4338/HB 4339 per earlier legislative package.
Who is affected
- Counties, county-created or county‑funded bodies, county officers/officials and employees, peace officers operating under county authority, residents of counties (as potential plaintiffs), the Attorney General’s office, and local circuit courts.
Effective/timeline notes
- Counties must cure existing noncompliant measures within 60 days of the act taking effect; enforcement actions may begin 61 days after the effective date. The bill passed the House and awaits further Senate consideration.
