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From 2011, the only thing keeping enforcement out of schools, hospitals, and courthouses was a federal self-restraint — rescinded in one memo on Jan 20, 2025.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
- Alaska: None
- Alabama: None
- Arkansas: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Arizona: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- California: Full
- Colorado: Full
- Connecticut: Full
- District of Columbia: Partial
- Delaware: None
- Florida: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Georgia: None
- Hawaii: None
- Iowa: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Idaho: None
- Illinois: Full
- Indiana: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Kansas: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Kentucky: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Louisiana: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Massachusetts: None
- Maryland: Full
- Maine: Partial
- Michigan: None
- Minnesota: None
- Missouri: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Mississippi: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Montana: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- North Carolina: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- North Dakota: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Nebraska: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- New Hampshire: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- New Jersey: Full
- New Mexico: Partial
- Nevada: Partial
- New York: Full
- Ohio: None
- Oklahoma: None
- Oregon: Full
- Pennsylvania: None
- Rhode Island: None
- South Carolina: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- South Dakota: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Tennessee: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Texas: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Utah: None
- Virginia: Partial
- Vermont: Partial
- Washington: Partial
- Wisconsin: None
- West Virginia: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Wyoming: None (state law mandates cooperation)
- Puerto Rico: None
Methodology v3.4 · scored Jun 10 2026
The model language
Read the full model bill →“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.”
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 + D.C.; 8 at full strength — CA, CO, CT, IL, MD, NJ, NY, OR. California builds the fullest list; New York’s Protect Our Courts Act anchors the courthouse piece (upheld; U.S. v. New York dismissed Nov 17 2025).
On the record
- DHS rescission memo, Jan 20 2025 (protected-areas policy ended)
- Dee, PNAS, Nov 2025 — +22% student absences after raids
- U.S. v. New York (N.D.N.Y.) — dismissed Nov 17 2025
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