WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

SB 437

Withhold state funding for noncooperation with homeland security

136th Legislature (2025-2026) Introduced by Andrew Brenner and 1 co-sponsor

SB 437 would withhold state homeland security funds from municipalities that enact policies hindering cooperation with federal homeland security, immigration, or terrorism investig

Referred to committee
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · SB 437

Summary of SB 437 (136th General Assembly, Ohio)

Purpose and intent

SB 437 would require municipal corporations to cooperate with federal homeland security efforts and with federal immigration and terrorism investigations. It removes the Director of Public Safety’s discretion to determine “noncooperation” and ties noncooperation to eligibility for state homeland security funding. In short, it aims to withhold state homeland security funds from municipalities that refuse to cooperate with certain federal homeland security activities or that adopt policies deemed to hinder such cooperation.

Key provisions and changes

  • Cooperation with federal authorities (A):
    All state or local employees must not unreasonably refuse lawful requests for assistance from federal authorities involved in:

    • USA Patriot Act provisions,
    • federal immigration or terrorism investigations, or
    • executive orders related to homeland security.
      Requests must be consistent with federalism principles.

  • Prohibition on local hindrances (B):
    Municipalities may not enact ordinances, policies, directives, rules, or resolutions that materially hinder or prevent local employees from:

    • complying with the USA Patriot Act,
    • complying with executive orders related to homeland security, or
    • cooperating with state or federal immigration services and terrorism investigations.

  • Funding consequences (C):

    • (1) Municipalities that enact prohibiting ordinances/policies (per B) become ineligible to receive any state homeland security funding.
    • (2) The Director of Public Safety must certify when a municipality has enacted disallowed measures, notify the General Assembly of the ineligibility, and the municipality remains ineligible until the ordinance/policy is repealed.

  • Disagreement or criticism (D):

    • A state/local employee’s disagreement with or critical opinion of the USA Patriot Act, federal immigration/terrorism policy, or related executive orders does not establish noncompliance under this section.
    • Municipal ordinances that express disagreement/criticism of immigration or terrorism policy or related laws are not considered a “material hindrance” to cooperation under this act.

  • Definitions (E):
    “USA Patriot Act” is defined as the USA Patriot Act (Public Law 107-056) as amended.

  • Procedural note:
    The bill repeals the existing section 9.63 and replaces it with the new provisions.

Who and what would be affected

  • Municipal corporations:
    Any city, town, village, or other municipal entity in Ohio that enacts ordinances or policies restricting cooperation with federal homeland security efforts could become ineligible for state homeland security funding.

  • State funding and oversight:
    The Director of Public Safety would play a central role in determining and certifying ineligibility for state homeland security funds based on municipal actions, with reporting to the General Assembly.

  • State and local employees:
    Acceptance of lawful federal requests for cooperation would be reinforced, subject to the stated caveat that requests must align with federalism.

Significant procedural or timeline aspects

  • The bill specifies a certification process wherein the Director of Public Safety determines and certifies a municipality’s ineligibility, and the municipality remains ineligible until repealing the prohibited ordinance/policy.
  • It establishes a formal mechanism for the General Assembly to be informed of ineligibilities.
  • It provides a framework for distinguishing lawful cooperation and permissible employee disagreement from “unreasonable noncompliance.”

Potential implications

  • Strengthening of alignment with federal homeland security efforts at the local level.
  • Financial impact on municipalities that opt to restrict cooperation with federal authorities, potentially affecting public safety funding and resources.
  • Possible legal and political debates over local autonomy, federalism, and the balance between local control and state-level security funding.

If you’d like, I can compare this bill to existing Ohio law or provide a plain-language Q&A for residents of municipalities likely to be affected.

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

Sign in to ask a question.