Federal Limits

Limit 06 of nine · Warrant

Require a judge’s warrant

0 of 36 arrest reports complied with a federal court’s injunction — arrests run on agency forms, not warrants.

The problem

Federal civil arrests run on forms an agency supervisor signs, not a neutral judge. Four federal courts enjoined the warrantless practice and three found defiance; in Colorado, not one of the 36 arrest reports produced under the injunction complied — “It is as if this court’s order never happened,” as the ACLU attorney on the case put it. A state judicial-warrant law is the self-executing answer.

What the law does

Requires a judge’s warrant before any state or local actor detains or transfers a person for federal civil enforcement; agency forms and detainers don’t qualify.

Where it stands

Where it stands — all 52 jurisdictions14 of 52 have written a limit of this kind
written in full written in part not written red underline = state law mandates cooperation
Find my state all 52 jurisdictions, with the statute where one exists
  • Alaskanot written
  • Alabamanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Arkansasnot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Arizonanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Californiawritten in fullCal. Gov. Code §§ 7284.4, 7284.6 (California Values Act, SB 54) + AB 2792 (2016, Ch. 768) — TRUTH Act, Cal. Gov. Code §§ 7283-7283.2 (rights notification) + AG model policy (non-durable, narrative only)
  • Coloradowritten in fullC.R.S. §§ 24-76.6-101 to 24-76.6-103 (article 76.6, added by HB 19-1124, Governor Signed) — authority of criminal justice officials re federal civil law enforcement; + SB 25-276 (2025, Governor Signed, Became Law)
  • Connecticutwritten in partCGS § 54-192h(b)(1)(A),(C)
  • District of Columbianot written
  • Delawarenot written
  • Floridanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Georgianot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Hawaiiwritten in partAct 141, Session Laws of Hawaii 2026 (SB 2057), §-3(5); exception at §-3(6)
  • Iowanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Idahonot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Illinoiswritten in full5 ILCS 805/15 (judicial warrant required) + AG enforcement framework
  • Indiananot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Kansasnot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Kentuckynot written
  • Louisiananot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Massachusettswritten in fullLunn v. Commonwealth + AG Campbell municipal guidance
  • Marylandwritten in partSB 791 / Ch. 872 (2026) — CS §8-805(B)(2)(II)3, (IV) judicial-warrant requirement for detainer holds + transfers; §8-805(A)(6) excludes DHS/DOJ documents
  • Mainewritten in fullLD 1971 / PL Ch. 517 — 5 MRSA §4763(1)(A)(2),(5) + (1)(D): no detention/arrest on hold requests; transfer only on court order or criminal warrant
  • Michigannot written
  • Minnesotanot written
  • Missourinot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Mississippinot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Montananot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • North Carolinanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • North Dakotanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Nebraskanot written
  • New Hampshirenot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • New Jerseywritten in partP.L.2026, c.5 § 3c(6) — detention past release-eligibility barred, with exceptions
  • New Mexiconot written
  • Nevadanot written
  • New Yorkwritten in partCiv. Rights Law § 29(2)(a) (Ch. 55, Laws of 2026, Part LL, Subpart E) — location-access judicial-warrant standard
  • Ohionot written
  • Oklahomanot written
  • Oregonwritten in partORS 181A.820(2)-(3),(5) (resource/personnel bar) + ORS 181A.828 (courthouse civil-arrest warrant standard)
  • Pennsylvanianot written
  • Rhode Islandwritten in partR.I. Gen. Laws § 12-34-3(a) (Protect Our Courts Act, P.L.2026 ch.185/186)
  • South Carolinanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • South Dakotanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Tennesseenot writtenstate law mandates cooperationHB 6001 (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Texasnot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Utahnot writtenstate law mandates cooperationHB 226 (2025) (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Virginiawritten in partVa. Code § 15.2-1726.1(B), enacted 2026 cc. 1028, 1098 — no law-enforcement assistance with federal civil immigration enforcement absent a judicial warrant or judicial subpoena; + SB 783 (signed 2026-04-22, eff. 2026-07-01)
  • Vermontnot written
  • Washingtonwritten in partRCW 10.93.160(7)-(8) — no detention solely to determine immigration status, nor solely on a civil immigration warrant or immigration hold request (administrative-detainer bar; no affirmative judicial-warrant mandate)
  • Wisconsinnot written
  • West Virginianot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Wyomingnot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Puerto Riconot written

Methodology v3.5 · scored Aug 20 2026

The model language

“No state or local agency, and no officer, employee, or contractor of any state or local agency, shall detain any person, hold any person beyond the lawful holding period for state purposes, or transfer any person to federal civil immigration enforcement custody, absent a judicial warrant signed by a federal or state judge or magistrate.”

— Section 6 · Warrant Requirement and Rights Notification, The Federal Limits Act
Read the full model bill →

What we propose

Bar state and local actors from detaining or transferring anyone into federal civil custody without a judge-signed warrant; state plainly that an I-247 detainer or I-200 administrative warrant does not qualify; shield agencies that decline. Model: California SB 54 (§7284.6); Massachusetts Lunn v. Commonwealth.

Who’s already done it

14 states; 5 at full strength — CA, CO, IL, MA, ME. California’s SB 54 is the statutory model; Massachusetts reached the same bar through its high court (Lunn, 2017).

On the record

Status: acute — the warrantless lane is the federal mainline; courts engaged, defiance documented. The state statute is the durable fix.

One of nine.
Not the whole fight.

See where your state stands on all nine limits, or read the model bill section that closes this one.

Check your state → ← Back to the Nine