Federal Limits

Limit 08 of nine · Remedies

Hold enforcement accountable

After Goldey v. Fields (June 2025), no federal remedy is left when enforcement crosses the line.

The problem

A limit with no remedy is a suggestion. In 2025–26 the federal paths to accountability closed at once: the Supreme Court barred the core damages claim (Goldey v. Fields, Jun 30 2025), tort immunity walls off the rest, and the DHS oversight offices were gutted. Two U.S. citizens were killed in enforcement operations — and their families hit the same immunity wall. A state right to sue is the remedy that’s left.

What the law does

Makes the state’s limits enforceable — through a private right to sue and/or attorney-general authority reaching local law enforcement.

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)
  • Californianot written
  • Coloradowritten in partC.R.S. §24-74-107 (SB25-276 §12) + §24-74.1-103 (SB25-276 §13)
  • Connecticutwritten in partPA 26-14 (SB 397) §§ 7–8 — protected-area/courthouse PRA
  • District of Columbianot writtenD.C. Code § 24-211.07(f) explicitly disclaims PRA
  • Delawarewritten in part11 Del. C. § 9402; 85 Del. Laws ch. 142 (SS 1 for SB 17, 2025), approved 2025-08-20
  • Floridanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Georgianot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Hawaiinot written
  • Iowanot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Idahonot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Illinoiswritten in part5 ILCS 805/30 (Way Forward Act — AG investigation authority)
  • 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 partMGL c.147 §64(e), inserted by St. 2026, c. 163, §7
  • Marylandwritten in partSB 791/Ch. 872 (2026) CS § 8-805(E)(1)-(2) — AG/individual civil action, injunctive relief only
  • Mainenot written
  • 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.4 § 5g (PRA for §§4–5 data violations) + § 5b(2)(b) (AG ALPR orders)
  • New Mexicowritten in partHB 9 § 5 (2026 Ch. 5) AG/DA civil action + SB 36 § 4 (2025 Ch. 138) civil penalty
  • Nevadanot written
  • New Yorkwritten in partN.Y. Exec. Law §63-e (Office of Immigrant Trust)
  • Ohionot written
  • Oklahomanot written
  • Oregonwritten in fullORS 181A.820(6), 181A.823(4), 181A.826(5), 181A.828(3), 181A.829(4) — "Any person may bring a civil action against a law enforcement agency or public body that violates … to enjoin the violation" (private right of action, injunctive relief), added by HB 3265 (2021 c.550); + statutory AG authority; + HB 4114 (2026), Chapter 58, Protect Your Door Act PRA
  • Pennsylvanianot written
  • Rhode Islandwritten in partR.I. Gen. Laws § 12-34-4 (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 cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Texasnot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Utahnot writtenstate law mandates cooperation (state law mandates cooperation)
  • Virginiawritten in partVa. Code § 15.2-1726.1(F), enacted 2026 cc. 1028, 1098 (HB 1441 / SB 783) — "the Attorney General, an attorney for the Commonwealth, or a county or city attorney may enforce the provisions of this section and the conditions provided in subsection C by seeking injunctive or declaratory relief"; prevailing party recovers reasonable attorney fees and costs. Reaches state and local agencies. (No PRA.)
  • Vermontwritten in part12 V.S.A. § 3577(c)(3) (Act 150 / S.209)
  • Washingtonwritten in partRCW 43.10.105 ("Civil investigations — Demands for documents, testimony"), added by 2026 c 243 §1 (ESSB 5925), eff. 2026-06-11
  • 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

“Any person aggrieved by a violation of any provision of this Act, or any organization with standing on behalf of such persons, may bring a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction against the responsible state or local agency or its employees acting in their official capacity.”

— Section 8 · Enforcement and Remedies, The Federal Limits Act
Read the full model bill →

What we propose

Create a private right of action (damages, fees, and a statutory minimum per unlawful detention) plus attorney-general authority to investigate and penalize, with a non-retaliation clause. Model: Oregon HB 3265 (ORS 181A.820(6), 181A.826(5), 181A.829(4)); the Illinois Bivens Act (PA 104-0440).

Who’s already done it

14 states have a mechanism; 1 at full strength — Oregon. Oregon holds it on a comprehensive private right of action. No state yet grants its attorney general audit authority plus the power to order corrective action over local law enforcement — the combination the full-strength test requires, and one that exists elsewhere in American law (Pennsylvania’s criminal-history statute does exactly this over local police).

On the record

Status: contested — federal remedies closed; states are recreating them. Whether a state may is being tested in U.S. v. Illinois.

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