Federal Limits

Limit 03 of nine · Sensitive locations

Off-limits: schools, hospitals, courthouses

+22% student absences after raids — the protection erased by a single memo.

The problem

From 2011, the only thing keeping enforcement out of schools, hospitals, and courthouses was a federal self-restraint — rescinded in one memo on Jan 20, 2025. A peer-reviewed study found a 22% jump in student absences across districts serving 500,000+ children after raids; hospital and school incursions are now documented across at least six metro areas. Court protections are partial and reversible — only a state property law is durable.

What the law does

Bars state and local facilitation of enforcement at protected places and requires a judge’s warrant before entry to their non-public areas.

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 partCal. Ed. Code §234.7 (as amended by AB 49, 2025) + Cal. Health & Safety Code §§24251-24252 (SB 81, 2025) + Cal. Gov. Code §7285.1 (AB 450); Cal. Civ. Code §43.54 (courthouse civil-arrest privilege — family-3 credit only, does not count as a 2-point location)
  • Coloradowritten in fullC.R.S. §§ 13-1-401 to 13-1-405 (added by SB 20-083, "Concerning prohibiting civil arrest while on courthouse grounds") — courthouses; + SB 25-276 (2025, Governor Signed, Became Law), codified in title 22 (schools); hospitals/childcare at C.R.S. §§ 24-74.1-101 to 24-74.1-103 (Article 74.1, SB 25-276 §13), federal-judge-warrant access standard
  • Connecticutwritten in partP.A. 26-14 §8(a)-(b) (courthouse judicial-marshal gate) + §7(a)-(b)
  • District of Columbianot written
  • Delawarenot written
  • 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 partPA 104-0440 Art.10 §10-15 (Court Access, Safety and Participation Act — courthouse civil-arrest privilege) + 5 ILCS 805/15(h)(1), (h)(7) (TRUST Act facilitation bar naming courthouses)
  • 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.221D §2(a)-(b), inserted by St. 2026, c. 163, §12
  • Marylandwritten in partHB 1222/Ch. 718 (2025) SG § 6-111(A)(4) + CP § 2-104.2(A)-(B), as amended by Ch. 161 (2026, SB 810)
  • Mainewritten in partLD 2106 / PL Ch. 770 — 20-A MRSA §14(2): no voluntary consent to LE entry; public schools + state postsecondary
  • 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 Jerseynot written
  • New Mexiconot written
  • Nevadawritten in partNRS 388.276 (added by AB 4 §46.5, 36th Special Session 2025) — school access and educational-information disclosure require a court order, warrant or subpoena; criminal-enforcement and exigency carveouts; remedy limited to employee discipline. Schools only — 1 of 6 location types
  • New Yorkwritten in partN.Y. Civ. Rights Law §28*2 (Protect Our Courts Act — courthouse civil-arrest privilege)
  • Ohionot written
  • Oklahomanot written
  • Oregonwritten in partHB 3265 (2021 c.550) Sec. 5, codified ORS 181A.828 (courthouses)
  • Pennsylvanianot written
  • Rhode Islandwritten in partR.I. Gen. Laws §§ 12-34-6, 12-34-7(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(C)(4), enacted 2026 cc. 1028, 1098 (HB 1441/SB 783) — schools, faith-based organizations and courthouses, but ONLY as a required term of a federal immigration enforcement agreement (conditional, not a freestanding statewide bar)
  • Vermontwritten in part12 V.S.A. § 3577(c)(1)-(2) (Act 150 / S.209)
  • Washingtonwritten in partRCW 2.28.310(1) (court facilities — no immigration inquiry, no notification of persons attending proceedings) + RCW 10.93.160(3) (schools, via school resource officers) — 2 of 6 location types
  • 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 federal civil immigration enforcement officer shall enter the non-public areas of a sensitive location absent a judicial warrant signed by a federal or state judge or magistrate, genuine exigent circumstances posing an immediate threat to life or safety, or the express written consent of the official responsible for the location.”

— Section 3 · Sensitive Location Protections, The Federal Limits Act
Read the full model bill →

What we propose

Protect six location types (courthouses, K-12 schools, hospitals and clinics, childcare, places of worship, workplaces); require a judge’s warrant, true exigency, or written consent before entry to non-public areas; add notice, documentation, and a private right to sue. Model: California SB 54 (§7284.4) + AB 49/AB 495; New York’s Protect Our Courts Act.

Who’s already done it

14 states; 1 at full strength — CO. California covers three of the six location types — schools, healthcare and workplaces — and takes partial credit; its courthouse protection rests on a civil-arrest privilege without the paired bar on personnel facilitating courthouse targeting. Illinois and New York protect courthouses the same way, which earns partial credit under the access test (U.S. v. New York dismissed Nov 17 2025; DOJ appealed to the Second Circuit Jan 15 2026).

On the record

Status: mixed — the federal rescission is in force and court shields are partial; the state property lever is the only restraint not dependent on federal forbearance.

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