Bill would restrict immigration arrests and access at courts and care facilities

People attending court would be protected from civil immigration arrest while going to, attending, and returning from a proceeding. It would cover parties, witnesses, potential witnesses, and people accompanying them, including people accessing a remote proceeding at another location. The protection would not prevent a criminal arrest under a judge’s warrant or based on probable cause of a crime. The protection would begin the day after final enactment.

Health care and child care facilities would set procedures for immigration agents’ entry, interactions, and requests for information. The rules would cover listed health care facilities, including hospitals, clinics, nursing homes, and assisted living facilities, as well as licensed and certified license-exempt child care centers. For civil immigration enforcement, health care staff could allow entry only with a valid judicial warrant, and only to areas named in it; this access rule would not apply in emergencies. Child care staff would require a valid judicial warrant and identification. Health information could be released when state or federal law requires it. Health care policies would require a qualifying federal court subpoena, order, or warrant for other patient information requests. Child care programs would generally be barred from disclosing a child’s or associated person’s immigration or citizenship status unless law requires it. Health care policies and staff training, and child care policies and employee training, would be required; the policies must be in place by December 31, 2026.

Schools and colleges would protect students’ access to education and set procedures for immigration enforcement requests. The provisions cover Minnesota school districts, charter schools, cooperative units, and specified public and private postsecondary institutions; the University of Minnesota Board of Regents is asked to comply. Schools could not deny children public education or school programs based on immigration or citizenship status, and generally could not collect or disclose related information. Federal law provides an exception for sharing certain status information with government entities. School and college procedures would include reviewing entry requests and seeking consent before an agent accesses a student, unless a qualifying court document restricts notice. Some listed campus access exceptions would apply, including access required by law or for supported education programs. Schools would have to adopt policies and develop procedures by December 31, 2026. Colleges would have to adopt procedures by that date and provide information to students during registration.

People injured by certain constitutional violations or by a failure to investigate and help after a use-of-force incident could bring civil cases. The constitutional-rights provisions cover people within Minnesota’s jurisdiction; the other claim covers a person injured by a violation of the cited use-of-force law. For the use-of-force claim, the injured person would need to prove the defendant failed to investigate and help as required and could have done so without significant risk of bodily harm to the defendant or others. A constitutional-rights case would have to be filed within three years after the claim arises. A court could award reasonable legal fees and costs to a winning plaintiff. The constitutional-rights provision and the use-of-force claim would apply to cases arising on or after December 1, 2025.

The bill would include federal agents in officer-involved death investigations and set limited exceptions to the public disguise crime for certain officers. The provisions concern federal agents and peace officers; the disguise exceptions cover only officers meeting the stated duty and safety conditions. The disguise exceptions would apply to peace officers and federal law enforcement officers performing official duties. An undercover officer would need to conceal their identity to protect an investigation or their safety; a tactical-team member could use a mask when it would substantially reduce a known risk of serious, lasting facial injury. The investigation provision would apply to deaths involving a federal agent’s or peace officer’s use of force while on duty or performing law enforcement duties off duty. The investigation provision would apply retroactively to officer-involved deaths occurring on or after December 1, 2025.