What this is
Not novel drafting. The Federal Limits Act stitches the strongest enacted provisions from 14 states' protective statutes into one modular template. Each section is sourced from a state law that has already been enacted, defended in court, and (where challenged) refined through litigation. Nothing here is theoretical — every word has a precedent.
01
Curation, not drafting
Every section's text is adapted from existing enacted state law. Anchor states named per section. No untested legislative language; no draft statutes that haven't been read by a state legislative counsel office.
02
Modular by section
Adopt one section, several, or all nine. The standards are independent levers — a state can introduce STD-09 (federal agent ID) without touching STD-04 (private detention). Each section is self-contained.
03
Cross-spectrum framing
The text is written for due-process protection, not partisan posture. Anti-commandeering doctrine (New York v. United States / Printz / Murphy) is the legal foundation across every section. The conservative case is as strong as the progressive one.
04
Single source of truth
Every protective-state legislator currently builds from a different drafter's template (ILRC, ICIRR, CIRC, Vera, ACLU, NYIC). The omnibus is the cross-tradition kit that lets a legislator pick the strongest provision per section regardless of who originally drafted it.
How to use it
Different users, different paths through the omnibus.
For state legislators
Introduce one section, several, or all
Pick the section your state is missing. The model bill text is drop-in. Adapt to your state's drafting conventions; cite the source statute in your committee briefing. For comprehensive reform: introduce as a single Federal Limits Act.
For coalition partners
Refer constituents to your state's gaps
Use the per-state gap view to show advocates exactly which provisions their state lacks. Hand legislators specific bill numbers from anchor states they can model.
For media
Stitch the protective ecosystem into one frame
The protective-state legislative tracks (Trust Acts, limited-cooperation policies, data privacy, mask bans) are usually covered as separate stories. The omnibus lets you cover them as one movement with a unified standard.
For litigators
Every provision has a precedent
The model bill text is adapted from enacted statutes that (where challenged) have survived federal court review. The court-status modifier in our methodology tracks live litigation per section.
The 9 Sections
Each section corresponds to one of the nine cooperation standards. Click a section to see the model bill language, source statutes, anchor states, and adoption status across the 52 jurisdictions.
01
Personnel & Resource Limits
State officers, money, equipment, facilities, and communications withdrawn from federal civil enforcement use.
11 of 52 at 2/2
Why this section
Federal civil immigration enforcement has limited independent infrastructure in most states. It runs on state and local personnel, state budgets, and state facilities. State legislation can sever that operational dependency. This is the foundational lever.
Model bill language
SECTION 1. PERSONNEL AND RESOURCE LIMITS.
(a) NO USE OF STATE RESOURCES. -- No state or local agency, and no
officer, employee, or contractor of any state or local agency, shall
use moneys, facilities, property, equipment, supplies, or personnel
to investigate, interrogate, detain, detect, report, or arrest any
person for purposes of federal civil immigration enforcement.
(b) PROHIBITED CONDUCT. -- The conduct prohibited by subsection (a)
includes:
(1) inquiring into a person's immigration status, country of birth,
or place of birth, except where required by federal law or for
a criminal investigation independent of immigration enforcement;
(2) detaining a person on the basis of a civil immigration
detainer (ICE Form I-247 or successor form), absent a judicial
warrant;
(3) providing personal information to federal civil immigration
enforcement except as required under section 5 of this Act
(Information Firewalls);
(4) participating in federal civil immigration enforcement
operations, including arrest, transportation, surveillance,
and detention activities; and
(5) permitting federal civil immigration enforcement officers
access to persons in state or local custody for interrogation
absent a judicial warrant or written consent of the person
in custody.
(c) APPLICATION. -- This section applies to all state agencies and
all units of local government within the State, including counties,
municipalities, sheriffs' offices, and law enforcement agencies of
every kind.
(d) NO LIMITATION ON COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL CRIMINAL LAW. -- Nothing
in this section limits compliance with valid federal criminal warrants,
detainers based on a criminal conviction or pending criminal charges,
or other federal criminal law enforcement activity unrelated to civil
immigration enforcement.
Adapted from California Government Code §7284.6 (SB 54, 2017) and Illinois 5 ILCS 805 (Way Forward Act, 2021). Both statutes have been federally challenged and upheld.
Anchor states (enacted at full credit)
Variations to consider
- Sworn-vs-civilian distinction: Some statutes cover only sworn law enforcement, exempting civilian state employees in records, motor vehicle, and benefits agencies. Cover all state employees for full credit.
- Fusion center participation: If your state participates in regional fusion centers (N-DEx, etc.), consider explicit language addressing whether and how state employees may participate.
- Federal-task-force assignments: Address whether state officers may serve on federal task forces that have civil immigration enforcement components.
02
Cooperation Contract Prohibitions
287(g), IGSAs, joint task force agreements, and federally conditioned grants prohibited. 287(g) ban is the lynchpin.
8 of 52 at 2/2
Why this section
287(g) agreements deputize local police as federal immigration officers. Active agreements grew from about 135 in January 2025 to more than 1,770 by April 30, 2026 — an expansion of over 1,200 percent in 16 months. State legislation is the only mechanism that can constrain this. Banning 287(g) is the lynchpin; state cooperation contracts in any form should require explicit state-level authorization.
Model bill language
SECTION 2. COOPERATION CONTRACT PROHIBITIONS.
(a) 287(g) AGREEMENTS PROHIBITED. -- No state or local agency shall
enter into, modify, extend, renew, or maintain any agreement
authorized under section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality
Act (8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)), including but not limited to Jail
Enforcement Model (JEM), Warrant Service Officer (WSO), or Task Force
Model (TFM) agreements.
(b) DETENTION CONTRACTS PROHIBITED. -- No state or local agency
shall enter into, modify, extend, renew, or maintain any
intergovernmental service agreement (IGSA) or other contract for
the housing or detention of persons in civil immigration custody,
including but not limited to contracts with U.S. Immigration and
Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, the
Department of Homeland Security, or any contractor thereof.
(c) JOINT TASK FORCE AGREEMENTS PROHIBITED. -- No state or local
agency shall enter into, modify, extend, renew, or maintain any
joint task force agreement, memorandum of understanding, or
operational agreement that authorizes federal civil immigration
enforcement to be conducted through the agency.
(d) CONDITIONAL FEDERAL GRANTS. -- No state or local agency shall
accept any federal grant, contract, or other funding that is
conditioned on cooperation with federal civil immigration
enforcement, except where such conditions are required by federal
law and have been judicially upheld against legal challenge.
(e) EXISTING AGREEMENTS. -- All agreements within the scope of
subsections (a) through (c) that are in effect on the effective date
of this Act shall be terminated within 180 days. No new agreements
within the scope of this section may be executed after the effective
date.
(f) ENFORCEMENT. -- Any agreement entered, renewed, or maintained
in violation of this section is void and unenforceable. The
Attorney General shall have authority to seek declaratory and
injunctive relief against any state or local agency violating
this section.
287(g) ban adapted from California Government Code §7284.9 (SB 54, 2017). Termination period adapted from Maryland HB 444 / Ch. 2 (2026, signed Gov. Moore). Detention contract ban adapted from California AB 103 (2017) and New Mexico HB 9 §4 (2026).
Anchor states (enacted at full credit)
Variations to consider
- Grandfather clauses: Some early enactments grandfathered existing 287(g) agreements. Avoid this — the methodology codebook §4.2 caps such states at 1/2 score until existing agreements expire.
- Termination period: Maryland's 180-day termination period (HB 444) is the cleanest. Shorter periods may face administrative challenge; longer periods leave the cooperation pipeline open during transition.
- Conditional funding subsection: The conditional-funding subsection (d) is novel and may invite federal challenge. Consider including with a severability clause.
03
Sensitive Location Protections
Courthouses, schools, hospitals, childcare, religious institutions, workplaces protected from federal civil enforcement access.
8 of 52 at 2/2
Why this section
Federal sensitive-location protections were rescinded January 20, 2025. State legislation is the only mechanism that restores these protections within state borders. If people stop going to school, the hospital, or court because they're afraid, the entire civic infrastructure breaks down.
Model bill language
SECTION 3. SENSITIVE LOCATION PROTECTIONS.
(a) DEFINITION. -- For purposes of this section, "sensitive location"
means:
(1) any state or local courthouse, court annex, or court-related
facility;
(2) any K-12 school, school facility, or school-sponsored event;
(3) any hospital, urgent care facility, public health clinic, or
similar healthcare facility;
(4) any childcare facility, including daycare centers, Head Start
programs, and licensed family childcare homes;
(5) any place of worship, religious institution, or religious
community gathering; and
(6) any place of employment within the State.
(b) ACCESS RESTRICTION. -- No federal civil immigration enforcement
officer shall enter the non-public areas of a sensitive location
absent:
(1) a judicial warrant signed by a federal or state judge or
magistrate; or
(2) genuine exigent circumstances posing an immediate threat to
life or safety; or
(3) the express written consent of the official responsible for
the location, provided that any such consent is documented
and reported under section 7 of this Act (Documentation).
(c) NOTIFICATION DUTY. -- Any state or local employee, school
official, healthcare provider, childcare provider, or place of
worship who becomes aware of federal civil immigration enforcement
activity at or near a sensitive location shall promptly notify the
location's responsible official, who shall document the activity.
(d) NO COOPERATION REQUIRED. -- No employee, official, or volunteer
of a sensitive location shall be required to cooperate with federal
civil immigration enforcement activity that would violate this
section.
(e) CIVIL ACTION. -- Any person aggrieved by a violation of this
section may bring a civil action under section 8 of this Act
(Enforcement and Remedies).
Sensitive location list adapted from California SB 54 §7284.4 + AB 49 (schools, 2025) + AB 495 (childcare, 2025). Access standard adapted from Connecticut SB 397 (2026). Notification duty adapted from Illinois PA 104-0288 + PA 104-0440.
Anchor states (enacted at full credit)
Variations to consider
- Higher education: Public colleges and universities can be added to the schools category. Maine LD 2106 includes postsecondary; California's protection is K-12 only.
- 1-mile radius vs. on-premises: Some bills (CA AB 421 pending) propose a 1-mile buffer around sensitive locations. The on-premises standard is more defensible; the buffer adds litigation risk.
- Domestic violence shelters and homeless shelters: California's SB 841 (2025, failed) would have added these. Worth considering for future expansion.
04
Private Detention Industry Restrictions
Private contractors prohibited from operating immigration detention facilities within state borders.
2 of 52 at 2/2 + 3 partial
Why this section
By early 2026, the federal government had structured up to $65 billion in detention-construction capacity through a U.S. Navy procurement vehicle (WEXMAC), with more than 130 contractors able to receive work without site-by-site competitive bidding. State law is the only mechanism that can prevent private operators from building immigration detention in a state. Note: California's AB 32 was struck down by the 9th Circuit en banc on Supremacy Clause grounds; the Illinois statute survived a similar challenge. Drafting carefully matters.
Model bill language
SECTION 4. PRIVATE DETENTION INDUSTRY RESTRICTIONS.
(a) PROHIBITION. -- No private contractor shall own, operate, or
maintain a civil immigration detention facility within the State.
For purposes of this section, "civil immigration detention facility"
means any facility used to detain persons in federal civil
immigration custody, regardless of whether the facility also detains
persons for other purposes.
(b) PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES. -- No state or local government, and no
agency or political subdivision thereof, shall:
(1) issue any permit, license, or zoning approval for the
construction, expansion, or operation of a private civil
immigration detention facility;
(2) provide any state or local funding, tax incentive, abatement,
or other financial benefit to a private contractor for the
operation of a civil immigration detention facility; or
(3) lease state or local property to a private contractor for use
as a civil immigration detention facility.
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE FOR EXISTING FACILITIES. -- All private civil
immigration detention facilities operating in the State on the
effective date of this Act shall cease operations within 24 months,
provided that the operator may apply to the Department of [Health
or Corrections] for a one-time extension of up to 12 months for
good cause shown.
(d) SEVERABILITY. -- If any provision of this section is held
invalid as applied to facilities operating under direct federal
contract, the remaining provisions of this section shall remain in
full force and effect as applied to all other private civil
immigration detention facilities and as applied to the activities
prohibited by subsection (b).
(e) ENFORCEMENT. -- Any violation of this section is enforceable
under section 8 of this Act (Enforcement and Remedies).
Core prohibition adapted from Illinois 730 ILCS 141 (Private Detention Facility Moratorium Act, 2019) — federal challenge dismissed January 2024. Subsection (b) adapted from Maryland HB 1018 (2026, zoning approval bar). Severability clause designed to preserve the statute against the Supremacy Clause challenge that struck down California AB 32 (9th Cir. en banc 2023).
Anchor states (enacted at full credit)
Variations to consider
- Direct federal contract carveout: The 9th Circuit struck down California AB 32 as applied to facilities under direct federal contract (Supremacy Clause). The severability clause in subsection (d) preserves the rest of the statute. Litigation is likely; the severability clause has not yet been tested.
- Zoning vs. operating ban: Subsection (b) is the strongest litigation-resistant approach because it operates through state property and permitting authority — areas the federal government cannot preempt. Pure operating bans face higher Supremacy Clause risk.
- State-owned facilities operated by private contractors: Define carefully whether "private contractor" includes private operators of state-owned facilities. Most enacted statutes focus on facility ownership; California's targeted both.
05
Information Firewalls
State data systems firewalled from federal civil enforcement requests across 5 domains: voter rolls, DMV, schools, health, professional licensing.
9 of 52 at 2/2
Why this section
Since January 2025, the federal government has demanded voter registration files from 48 states. States with statutory firewalls refused and have been winning in federal court. States without firewalls turned over Social Security numbers and driver license data. This is not theoretical — it is the active legal terrain.
Model bill language
SECTION 5. INFORMATION FIREWALLS.
(a) GENERAL PROHIBITION. -- No state agency shall disclose, provide
access to, or transfer any personal information of any person
contained in state databases or records to federal civil immigration
enforcement, except where:
(1) compelled by a judicial warrant signed by a federal or state
judge or magistrate;
(2) compelled by a subpoena issued by a court of competent
jurisdiction; or
(3) required by federal law, provided that such requirement has
been judicially upheld against legal challenge.
(b) PROTECTED DATA DOMAINS. -- The prohibition in subsection (a)
specifically covers the following data domains:
(1) VOTER REGISTRATION. -- Any state agency that maintains voter
registration data, including but not limited to voter rolls,
voter signatures, voter addresses, dates of birth, social
security numbers, and driver license numbers.
(2) MOTOR VEHICLE RECORDS. -- Any state agency that maintains
driver license, identification card, vehicle registration, or
motor vehicle violation records, including any data contained
in applications for limited-purpose driver credentials issued
under [State limited-purpose DL statute].
(3) SCHOOL RECORDS. -- Any K-12 public school district, charter
school, or institution of higher education that receives state
funding shall not disclose student records, attendance data,
or family contact information beyond what is required by the
federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
(4) HEALTH RECORDS. -- Any state-controlled health facility, public
hospital, county health department, or other state-funded
healthcare provider shall not disclose patient records or
presence-of-care information beyond what is required by the
federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(HIPAA).
(5) PROFESSIONAL LICENSING. -- The State opts out, to the maximum
extent permitted by law, of the requirement under section 432
of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity
Reconciliation Act (PRWORA, 8 U.S.C. § 1642) to verify
immigration status through the SAVE database for any
professional, occupational, or business license issued by a
State licensing board. State licensing boards are prohibited
from disclosing applicant data to federal civil immigration
enforcement except as required by subsection (a).
(c) ALPR DATA. -- The State shall not share automated license plate
reader (ALPR) data with federal civil immigration enforcement or with
any contractor or interstate data-sharing arrangement that includes
federal civil immigration enforcement.
(d) HARD-DENIAL POSTURE. -- State agencies shall actively refuse,
in writing, any federal civil immigration enforcement request
that does not meet the criteria in subsection (a), and shall
maintain a public log of such refusals under section 7
(Documentation).
Voter rolls adapted from Colorado SB 24-182. DMV adapted from California Vehicle Code §1801.1 / AB 60 (2013). Schools adapted from California AB 699 + AB 49 + Illinois Way Forward Act. Health adapted from California AB 1184 + AG model policy. Professional licensing adapted from California SB 1159 + B&P Code §135.5 + Illinois IDFPR firewall. ALPR provision adapted from New Mexico SB 40 (2026).
Anchor states (enacted at full credit)
Variations to consider
- Professional licensing 2-part test: Per the codebook, this domain requires both a PRWORA opt-out AND an organizational firewall covering boards. CA and IL meet both. NJ and NM are borderline; legal analysis recommended.
- Hard-denial language: The strongest statutes use "shall not" and "is prohibited from." Soft language ("may decline to") does not satisfy the codebook's hard-denial requirement.
- State-by-state vs. interstate data networks: If your state participates in N-DEx, NLETS, or fusion centers, the firewall must address whether and how data flows through those networks.
06
Warrant Requirement
Judicial warrant — signed by a federal Article III judge — required for any detention, hold, or transfer for federal civil enforcement. Rights notifications are supplementary per-state narrative material under v3.3.
8 of 52 at 2/2
Why this section
Federal courts have repeatedly found that warrantless civil immigration arrests violate the Fourth Amendment, including a Seventh Circuit ruling in May 2026. The judicial warrant requirement provides the procedural floor. Rights notifications during enforcement encounters operationalize the due-process right to remain silent and refuse consent.
Model bill language
SECTION 6. WARRANT REQUIREMENT AND RIGHTS NOTIFICATION.
(a) JUDICIAL WARRANT REQUIRED. -- 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.
(b) NO ADMINISTRATIVE-DETAINER EXCEPTION. -- For purposes of this
section, an administrative immigration detainer (ICE Form I-247 or
successor form), an administrative warrant of arrest (ICE Form I-200
or successor form), or any other document issued by federal civil
immigration enforcement authorities that has not been signed by a
judge or magistrate does not satisfy the judicial warrant
requirement.
(c) RIGHTS NOTIFICATION. -- Whenever a state or local agency makes
any contact with a person regarding federal civil immigration
enforcement, the agency shall provide the person, in a language the
person understands, with notice of the following rights:
(1) the right to remain silent;
(2) the right to refuse to consent to a search of person, vehicle,
or premises;
(3) the right to refuse to sign any document without speaking to
an attorney;
(4) the right to legal counsel; and
(5) the right to refuse to answer questions about immigration
status, country of birth, or place of birth.
(d) PRE-TRANSFER NOTIFICATION. -- Before any state or local agency
transfers a person to federal civil immigration enforcement custody
under a judicial warrant, the agency shall:
(1) provide the person reasonable advance notice of the transfer;
(2) provide the person reasonable opportunity to contact an
attorney; and
(3) document the transfer under section 7 of this Act.
(e) NO LIABILITY FOR NON-COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL DETAINERS. -- No
state or local agency, and no officer or employee thereof, shall be
subject to civil or criminal liability under State law for declining
to honor an administrative immigration detainer or for releasing a
person at the conclusion of the lawful holding period for state
purposes.
Warrant requirement adapted from California SB 54 §7284.6 + Massachusetts Lunn v. Commonwealth (Mass. SJC 2017) codification approach. No-administrative-detainer exception adapted from Illinois TRUST Act + Connecticut CGS § 54-192h. Rights notification adapted from California AB 263 + Oregon HB 3265 (Sanctuary Promise Act). Pre-transfer notification adapted from New Jersey AG Directive 2018-6 / A4071 codification.
Anchor states (enacted at full credit)
Variations to consider
- Massachusetts via Lunn: If your state has a high-court ruling analogous to Lunn v. Commonwealth (Mass. SJC 2017), codification is recommended for stability — court rulings can be revisited; statute is harder to dislodge.
- "Warrant or detainer" language: Avoid this formulation. Some pre-2018 statutes treated administrative detainers as a substitute for judicial warrants. The 2-point bar requires explicit rejection of administrative detainers.
- Booking-status language: A statute that prohibits any holding period beyond the lawful state holding period satisfies the warrant requirement element. The detention is either lawful for state purposes or it ends.
07
Documentation Transparency
Public reporting of cooperation activity by all state and local agencies on a regular schedule (annual minimum, quarterly preferred).
3 of 52 at 2/2
Why this section
In April 2026, the Government Accountability Office found that the Department of Homeland Security cannot demonstrate its oversight programs work. State-level reporting creates the documentary record that enables both citizen oversight and state-level enforcement of cooperation laws. Without reporting, every other section is unenforceable in practice.
Model bill language
SECTION 7. DOCUMENTATION TRANSPARENCY.
(a) REPORTING REQUIREMENT. -- Each state and local agency that
interacts with federal civil immigration enforcement shall report
quarterly to the [Attorney General / Governor's Office / Department
of State] and shall publicly post the report on the agency's website
no later than 30 days after the end of each calendar quarter.
(b) REPORTING SCOPE. -- Each report under subsection (a) shall
include, at minimum:
(1) the number and nature of communications with federal civil
immigration enforcement, including requests for information,
requests for cooperation, and notifications;
(2) the number of custody transfers and releases under judicial
warrant, with the originating jurisdiction and the basis for
the warrant;
(3) the number of administrative detainers received, the
disposition of each, and the agency's response;
(4) the number of federal civil immigration enforcement officer
requests to access the agency's premises, facilities, or
records, and the agency's response;
(5) the number and nature of contracts, agreements, or
memoranda of understanding with federal civil immigration
enforcement entities; and
(6) the number of state or local employees, by job category,
trained on the requirements of this Act in the reporting
period.
(c) STATEWIDE AGGREGATION. -- The Attorney General [or designated
agency] shall publish a statewide annual aggregation of the
quarterly reports, no later than 90 days after the end of each
calendar year.
(d) NON-REPORTING ENFORCEMENT. -- Any agency that fails to file
a quarterly report under this section shall be subject to AG
investigation and may be subject to corrective action under
section 8 (Enforcement and Remedies).
(e) PRIVACY. -- Reports under this section shall not include any
personal information that would identify a specific individual
subject to enforcement, except in aggregate data form. Where
individual data is required for litigation or oversight under
section 8, the data shall be released only under appropriate
protective order.
Reporting framework adapted from Illinois 5 ILCS 805/25 (Way Forward Act — annual law-enforcement reporting to the Attorney General on all DHS requests; the gold-standard public report). Scope categories adapted from California SB 54 §7284.10 (annual AG Values Act report) and New Jersey A4071/S3521 / AG documentation framework. Public posting requirement adapted from D.C. Law 26-55. (Note: Colorado SB 21-131 is PII-tracking, scored under STD-05 Information Firewalls, not STD-07.)
Anchor states (enacted at full credit)
Variations to consider
- Cadence: Per revised codebook §4.7, annual reporting with full agency coverage and public posting satisfies the 2-point bar. Quarterly is preferred but not required. The protection is the existence of comprehensive reporting infrastructure.
- Local agency reach: Statutes that require local agencies to report to a state body, which then publishes aggregated data, satisfy the local-agency element provided enforcement against non-reporting locals exists (subsection d).
- Transfer-only vs. full scope: Statutes requiring only custody-transfer reporting are too narrow per codebook. Full scope (communications, contracts, premises requests, training) is required for 2/2.
08
Enforcement & Remedies
Private right of action with damages and statutory AG enforcement authority specifically over cooperation laws.
9 of 52 at 2/2
Why this section
Every other section of this Act is only as strong as the mechanism that enforces it. A warrant requirement with no penalty is a suggestion. A private right of action with statutory AG backing is the teeth behind every other section. As of May 2026, nine states meet the 2/2 bar (codebook §4.8) through either a comprehensive private right of action or comprehensive statutory AG authority reaching local law enforcement. Connecticut and Oregon are the gold standard — they combine both mechanisms.
Model bill language
SECTION 8. ENFORCEMENT AND REMEDIES.
(a) PRIVATE RIGHT OF ACTION. -- 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.
(b) AVAILABLE REMEDIES. -- A court adjudicating an action under
subsection (a) may award:
(1) compensatory damages;
(2) injunctive relief, including orders compelling compliance
with this Act;
(3) declaratory relief;
(4) reasonable attorney fees and costs; and
(5) such other relief as the court deems appropriate.
(c) MINIMUM STATUTORY DAMAGES. -- For violations involving the
unlawful detention or transfer of a person under section 6, a
prevailing plaintiff shall be entitled to minimum statutory
damages of $25,000 per violation, in addition to any actual
damages proven.
(d) STATUTORY ATTORNEY GENERAL AUTHORITY. -- The Attorney General
of the State has authority to investigate, audit, and enforce
violations of this Act by any state or local agency. The Attorney
General may:
(1) issue subpoenas to compel testimony and production of
documents;
(2) issue corrective orders requiring an agency to bring its
practices into compliance;
(3) bring civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief;
and
(4) seek civil penalties of up to $50,000 per violation, payable
to the State General Fund.
(e) NON-RETALIATION. -- No state or local agency, employee, or
official shall retaliate against any person who reports a violation
of this Act, files a civil action under subsection (a), or
cooperates with an Attorney General investigation under subsection
(d). Any such retaliation is itself a violation of this Act
actionable under subsection (a).
(f) NO LIMITATION ON OTHER REMEDIES. -- Nothing in this section
limits any other remedy available under State or federal law,
including remedies under [State civil rights statutes] and 42
U.S.C. § 1983.
Private right of action adapted from Connecticut HB 7212 (2025) — PRA with compensatory damages and attorney's fees, effective Oct 1, 2025. Minimum statutory damages adapted from Illinois PA 104-0288 ($17K minimum, 3x multiplier). AG authority adapted from Colorado SB 25-276 (civil penalties up to $50,000). Non-retaliation adapted from Oregon Sanctuary Promise Act enforcement framework.
Anchor states (enacted at full credit)
Variations to consider
- Converse-1983 remedies are addressed separately: See the Companion Section on State Civil Rights Remedies. General state civil rights remedies do not contribute to STD-08 scoring per codebook §4.8 because they are not cooperation-specific.
- Standing: The PRA in subsection (a) explicitly grants standing to organizations on behalf of affected persons. Some statutes restrict standing to directly affected individuals; broader standing is preferred.
- Damages floor: Statutes that permit only declaratory or injunctive relief without damages do not satisfy the 2-point bar. Either monetary damages or substantive equitable remedies must be available.
09
Federal Agent Identification & Recording
Visible ID + mask prohibition + recording requirement for all law enforcement operating in the state. Fastest-moving section.
3 of 52 at 2/2 + 2 partial
Why this section
Eighty percent of Americans support requirements that law enforcement officers identify themselves; eighty-six percent support body cameras. Federal courts in 2026 have found that masked federal civil enforcement arrests violate the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. State legislation operationalizes both the public consensus and the due-process standard. Note: California's SB 805 (visible ID requirement) was enjoined by the 9th Circuit in April 2026 on Supremacy Clause grounds. Drafting carefully matters.
Model bill language
SECTION 9. FEDERAL AGENT IDENTIFICATION AND RECORDING.
(a) APPLICATION. -- This section applies to all law enforcement
officers operating within the State, including officers of state
and local agencies, federal agencies, and out-of-state agencies
operating under inter-jurisdictional agreement.
(b) VISIBLE IDENTIFICATION REQUIRED. -- Any law enforcement officer
on duty within the State shall visibly display, in a manner
observable by members of the public:
(1) the officer's name or unique identifying number;
(2) the agency the officer represents; and
(3) the officer's badge or other agency-issued identification.
(c) FACIAL COVERING PROHIBITED. -- No law enforcement officer shall
wear a non-medical facial covering that conceals identifying
features while on duty within the State, except:
(1) personal protective equipment required by occupational health
standards;
(2) religious head coverings; or
(3) facial coverings required by a documented tactical operation,
provided that the agency files a written justification for
each such use with the [Department of Justice / Department
of State Police] within 30 days.
(d) RECORDING. -- Where a state or local law enforcement agency
employs body cameras for state and local officers, those cameras
shall continue to record during any interaction in which the officer
is in the presence of, or directly cooperates with, federal civil
immigration enforcement. State employees and members of the public
have the right to record federal civil immigration enforcement
operations conducted in public spaces.
(e) CIVIL ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. -- Any person detained, arrested,
or otherwise affected by a law enforcement action conducted in
violation of subsections (b), (c), or (d) may bring a civil action
under section 8 of this Act (Enforcement and Remedies). For
violations of this section involving federal civil immigration
enforcement officers operating in the State, the affected person
may bring action against the State or local agency that authorized,
facilitated, or failed to prevent the violation.
(f) NO STATE COOPERATION WITH NON-COMPLIANT FEDERAL OPERATIONS. --
No state or local agency shall cooperate with, provide resources
to, or facilitate any federal civil immigration enforcement
operation in which federal officers are operating in violation of
the requirements of subsections (b) or (c).
(g) SEVERABILITY. -- If subsection (b), (c), or (d) is held
invalid as applied to federal officers under the Supremacy Clause,
the remaining provisions of this section, and subsection (f) in
particular, shall remain in full force and effect.
Visible identification + mask prohibition adapted from Oregon HB 4138 (signed April 9, 2026) — the cleanest enacted template, no injunction as of audit date. Civil enforcement mechanism adapted from Connecticut SB 397 (signed May 4, 2026). Severability clause designed to preserve the statute against the Supremacy Clause challenge that enjoined California SB 805 (9th Cir. April 22, 2026). Subsection (f) — state non-cooperation with non-compliant federal operations — is a novel provision designed to operate through state authority and avoid the direct-regulation Supremacy Clause issue.
Anchor states (enacted at full credit)
Variations to consider
- Supremacy Clause vulnerability: The 9th Circuit's April 2026 enjoinment of California SB 805 found that visible-ID mandates as applied directly to federal officers violate the Supremacy Clause. The severability clause and subsection (f) are designed to preserve the rest of the statute.
- "All law enforcement" framing: Statutes framed to apply to "all law enforcement operating in the State" rather than naming federal agents specifically have somewhat better Supremacy Clause prospects but remain at litigation risk.
- Recording dimension: Body camera mandates that already cover state/local officers satisfy the recording requirement when those officers interact with federal operations. Citizen-recording authorization is the alternative path.
- Fast-moving: This section is re-evaluated quarterly per codebook §7.3. New York MELT Act is pending Hochul's signature; further enactments are anticipated.
Companion Sections Omnibus-only
These companion sections are not part of the methodology v3.3 scoring system but are real and important state-level levers. They live in the omnibus because the overall Federal Limits Act framework benefits from including them — a state legislator adopting the omnibus gets both the scored sections and these companion provisions.
COMPANION A · CIVIL RIGHTS REMEDIES
Converse-1983 State Civil Rights Remedies
Enacted in 5 states (CA, ME, MA, NJ, IL) + active in 15 more
A state-law analog to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Permits any person whose rights under the State Constitution are violated by any government official acting under color of law to bring a civil action for damages, injunctive relief, and attorney fees. Critically, a Converse-1983 remedy reaches federal officers who violate State constitutional rights while operating in the State — something the federal § 1983 statute does not do.
Model bill language (excerpt)
COMPANION SECTION A. STATE CIVIL RIGHTS REMEDIES.
(a) RIGHT OF ACTION. -- Any person whose rights under the
[State] Constitution are deprived by any government official
acting under color of state, federal, or local law may bring a
civil action against the responsible official in any court of
competent jurisdiction.
(b) REMEDIES. -- A prevailing plaintiff under subsection (a)
may recover compensatory damages, punitive damages, injunctive
relief, declaratory relief, reasonable attorney fees, and costs.
(c) NO QUALIFIED IMMUNITY. -- The defense of qualified immunity
under federal law is not available against actions brought under
this section.
(d) LIMITATIONS PERIOD. -- Actions under this section shall be
brought within three years of the alleged violation.
Adapted from Vermont H.849 Constitutional Accountability Act (April 27, 2026, effective July 1, 2026), codified at 12 V.S.A. ch. 205 § 5797. The Vermont statute is the only enacted civil rights remedy that explicitly reaches federal officers and offers monetary damages.
Why omnibus-only: Per methodology codebook §4.8, general civil rights remedies are not cooperation-specific and do not contribute to STD-08 scoring. But they are real and significant state-level levers that complement the cooperation-specific architecture. FL has the opportunity to anchor a national movement for state-level Converse-1983 enactment — no other organization is currently doing this work.
COMPANION B · FEDERAL-ACCOUNTABILITY AUTHORITY
Attorney General Federal-Accountability Authority & Fund
Working draft · model text, not yet enacted
An optional module that confirms the state Attorney General's authority to take a federal agency to court when it acts contrary to federal law or its own regulations inside the state, creates a dedicated litigation fund so that authority is real rather than a paper tiger, and authorizes a public intake so affected residents can report misconduct and be gathered as evidence. The authority is written broadly — it reaches any federal agency acting contrary to federal law or its own rules — with falsified or concealed federal-vehicle license plates as the live, concrete example.
Model bill language (excerpt)
COMPANION SECTION B. ATTORNEY GENERAL FEDERAL-ACCOUNTABILITY
AUTHORITY AND FUND.
(a) AUTHORITY. -- The Attorney General may bring a civil action,
in any court of competent jurisdiction, for declaratory and
injunctive relief against the United States, a federal agency, or
a federal officer in an official capacity, for any action that
exceeds statutory authority, violates federal law, or is contrary
to the agency's own regulations, and that injures the sovereign or
proprietary interests of the State -- including the integrity of
the State's motor-vehicle registration records and the safety of
the public and of law-enforcement officers within the State.
(b) LITIGATION FUND. -- There is established the Federal
Accountability Litigation Fund, continuously available to the
Attorney General to investigate, prepare, and prosecute those
actions, and replenished by any costs, fees, or penalties
recovered in them.
(c) PUBLIC INTAKE. -- The [Secretary of State / Department of
Motor Vehicles] shall maintain a public hotline and online portal
by which any person may report a vehicle displaying a falsified,
swapped, obscured, or impersonated registration plate; shall
preserve those reports; and shall transmit them to the Attorney
General for use as evidence.
(d) CONSTRUCTION. -- This module vindicates the interests of the
State; it does not represent private individuals, and it does not
regulate, command, or penalize any federal officer. It is optional,
may be enacted on its own or as part of the Act, and is severable.
Developed by Federal Limits, May 2026, in response to documented federal license-plate-concealment practices. Standing is framed on the State's own injury — the integrity of its registration records and public and officer safety — the line courts allow under Haaland v. Brackeen (2023), not a claim brought "on behalf of residents."
Educational resource, not legal advice. This is model text for lawmakers, advocates, and the public; it creates no attorney-client relationship and is not finished law. Some theories it supports are novel or unsettled, and any state considering it should have it reviewed and adapted by legislative counsel. Federal Limits is an educational organization; it is not a party to, and does not direct or coordinate, any litigation.
Why omnibus-only: FL's nine standards measure a state's defensive limits — the walls it builds around its own systems. This module is an offensive remedy: the State going to court against federal overreach. Like the Converse-1983 remedy above, it is a companion and empowerment tool, not a scored standard.
Find Your State's Gaps
Pick your state. The view shows where your state stands on each of the 9 standards under v3.3, and links to the omnibus section where the model bill language is ready to introduce.