WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HF 3924

State and local government participation in federal civil immigration enforcement efforts limited, places where arrests can be made restricted, cause of action for violations of constitutional rights created, denial of education based on immigration status prohibited, other immigration related provisions modified, and money appropriated.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Esther Agbaje and 22 co-sponsors

Minnesota bill limits state/local immigration enforcement participation, protects school access regardless of immigration status, and creates legal remedies for constitutional violations.

Introduction and first reading, referred to Judiciary Finance and Civil Law
#appropriations #educationandeducationdepartment #governmentaloperations-federal #internationalrelations
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HF 3924

Legislative bill overview

HF 3924 limits Minnesota state and local government participation in federal immigration enforcement, restricts where immigration-related arrests can occur, and prohibits denying education based on immigration status. The bill creates a private right of action for constitutional violations related to immigration enforcement and appropriates funds to implement these changes.

Why is this important

This legislation directly affects how local police and schools interact with federal immigration authorities, potentially reshaping enforcement practices across Minnesota. It addresses concerns about racial profiling, community trust in law enforcement, and educational access for undocumented immigrants and their families.

Potential points of contention

  • Enforcement cooperation limits: Debate over whether restricting local-federal coordination hampers public safety or protects vulnerable populations from over-enforcement
  • Private right of action: Questions about litigation costs, who qualifies to sue, and whether this creates excessive liability exposure for municipalities and schools
  • Education access provisions: Disagreement over whether denying enrollment based on immigration status is already illegal and whether this duplicates existing protections
  • Fiscal impact: Uncertainty about implementation costs, legal defense expenses, and the scope of required appropriations
  • Federal preemption concerns: Constitutional questions about state authority to limit participation in federal immigration enforcement programs

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

Sign in to ask a question.