WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

AB 217

Revises provisions relating to law enforcement on school property. (BDR 34-201)

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Cecelia González

AB 217 bars ICE from entering Nevada K–12 schools or accessing pupil records without a court warrant, protecting students and families through school discipline.

Vetoed by the Governor.
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · AB 217

AB 217 — Summary (Revises provisions relating to law enforcement on school property)

Sponsor: Assemblymember Cecelia González
Introduced: Jan 8, 2025 — Prefiled Feb 3, 2025
Status: Vetoed by the Governor (June 5, 2025)

Purpose

AB 217 (BDR 34-201) was intended to limit immigration-enforcement activity and the sharing of student/family information on K–12 public school property in Nevada so that schools remain “places of learning, not enforcement zones.” Its stated aim was to protect student safety, school access, and student privacy by requiring judicial process before federal immigration officials (and, in certain drafts, state/local officers engaged in immigration enforcement) could access schools or obtain pupil records or information.

Key provisions (as enacted in final enrolled version)

  • Prohibits a school district, public school (including charter schools) and any employee from granting a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officer — or other federal official engaged in immigration investigation/enforcement — permission to access school grounds, buildings or facilities unless the officer has a lawful court-issued warrant or order.
  • Prohibits those entities and employees from disclosing education records or any information about a pupil or a pupil’s family/household to ICE, other federal immigration officials, or state/local law enforcement officers engaged in immigration enforcement, except pursuant to a lawful court order or warrant.
  • Provides that any person who knowingly and willfully violates these prohibitions is subject to disciplinary action by the employing school district or public school.
  • Defines “public school” broadly to include charter schools and university schools for profoundly gifted pupils.
  • Effective date (if it had become law): July 1, 2025.

Major changes during the legislative process

  • Early drafts included a second section (now deleted) that would have prohibited school police officers in large counties (population ≥700,000) from using chemical agents or electronic stun devices against pupils or minors, required reporting and local-board investigations, and imposed criminal penalties for violations. That Section 2 was removed by amendment.
  • The bill’s penalty structure was amended multiple times:
    • Original first reprint: first violation — disciplinary action; subsequent violations — misdemeanor.
    • Senate Amendment No. 767 (final) removed the criminal misdemeanor penalty, leaving only disciplinary sanctions by the employing school district.

Who would be affected

  • Students and families (especially immigrant and mixed-status households) — increases privacy and limits on onsite immigration enforcement.
  • School employees and administrators — prohibited from granting access or sharing certain information without a warrant; subject to district disciplinary policies for violations.
  • School districts and charter schools — must follow new restrictions and apply disciplinary processes; formerly would have faced possible criminal-exposure language (later removed).
  • Federal immigration officials and state/local law enforcement engaged in immigration enforcement — restricted from informal access/requests on school property without judicial process.

Procedural / timeline highlights

  • Assembly passage: read third time and passed March 20, 2025 (Assembly vote recorded Ayes 53, Noes 17).
  • Multiple committee actions, reprints and amendments (notably Assembly Amendment No. 159 on April 15, 2025; Senate Amendment No. 767 on May 22, 2025).
  • Final Senate passage as amended (May 23, 2025). Enrolled and delivered to Governor May 29, 2025.
  • Vetoed by the Governor on June 5, 2025.

Fiscal and legal notes

  • Fiscal note (throughout process) flagged an effect on local government: “Increases or Newly Provides for Term of Imprisonment in County or City Jail or Detention Facility.” (This reflected earlier drafts that included criminal penalties; final enrolled version removed the misdemeanor.)
  • The bill generated debate over federal preemption and constitutionality: supporters argued it protected student safety and school access; opponents argued it could conflict with federal authority over immigration and invite legal challenges and fiscal costs.

Support and opposition (representative)

  • Support: Nevada education and immigrant-advocacy groups (e.g., Nevada State Education Association, Make the Road Nevada, AAPI Democratic Caucus, Native Voters Alliance Nevada), educators, parents and former students who testified about fear and attendance impacts.
  • Opposition: Letters/testimony warning the bill would impede federal immigration enforcement, be unconstitutional, create public-safety concerns, and potentially waste public resources on litigation.

Practical effect (had it become law)

If enacted as enrolled, AB 217 would have required school employees and districts to deny informal access and information requests from ICE (and limited state/local enforcement acting as immigration agents) unless the agency presented a judicial warrant or court order, with violations addressed through school-district disciplinary processes rather than criminal prosecution. The bill would have codified safe-school protections for immigrant families while removing one avenue for informal immigration inquiries on school premises.

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

Sign in to ask a question.