Assembly hearing on AB217: sponsors seek ban on immigration enforcement and student‑record disclosures at schools; broad support from community groups

Assemblymember Cecilia Gonzales introduced AB217 to the Assembly Committee on Education, proposing that school districts and personnel may not allow immigration enforcement agents to access school facilities or disclose a student's education records, family or household information without a lawful court order or warrant. In the version presented to the committee the sponsor noted an amendment posted to delete Section 2 and said the committee would consider only Section 1.

Gonzales said the bill responds to community fears that immigration enforcement presence at schools deters attendance and harms students’ mental health and academic progress. She said AB217 “prohibits school districts and public school personnel from allowing immigration and customs enforcement officers or any other federal official investigating or enforcing immigration to access the district's facilities or school grounds and disclosing a student's educational records, family or household information, or any other information about the student without a lawful order or warrant issued by a court with the appropriate jurisdiction and signature.”

Committee counsel Asher Killian explained constitutional limits on federal power and state prerogatives: under the Eleventh Amendment the federal government cannot force states to enforce federal law, so the bill directs state and local officials not to cooperate with civil immigration enforcement absent a judicial warrant. Killian also said federal privacy protections like FERPA remain, but a state law mirroring those restrictions would create state‑law enforcement remedies.

Supporters filled the witness list. Speakers in favor included advocacy, education and labor organizations and individuals who described fear among children and families, especially mixed‑status households, and urged codifying existing local policies statewide. Testimony included:

- Carissa Pierce, Children’s Advocacy Alliance: urged protecting student mental health and stopping practices that drive chronic absenteeism. - Kayla Maese, ACLU of Nevada: said the ACLU supported the bill and thanked the sponsor. - Alexander Marks, Nevada State Education Association: said the association supported retaining current practice of not assisting immigration enforcement in schools and cited attorney general guidance. - Representatives of Make the Road Nevada, Progressive Leadership Alliance of Nevada, OneAPI, Nevada Immigrant Coalition and multiple local community organizers and parents spoke about fear and attendance impacts.

Several organizations and witnesses said some large school districts already follow similar practices; sponsors said the bill would codify protections statewide. Committee counsel and several members discussed the interaction with FERPA (the federal Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act); Assemblymember L'Heureux Hatch asked whether FERPA already bars disclosure and sponsors explained that state law would add an enforceable state remedy and make the protection explicit in Nevada statute.

Concerns and procedural questions were raised. The Nevada Association of School Boards (Tom Clark) and the Nevada Association of School Superintendents (Mary Piezynsky) both said they appreciated removal of the bill's original Section 2 but expressed concern about a new criminal misdemeanor in Section 3 that would attach to willful violations by school personnel. Committee counsel noted federal penalties and remedies under federal law can differ from state enforcement; he said the Eleventh Amendment permits the state to decline to assist federal enforcement.

Committee action and next steps: earlier in the meeting the committee voted to introduce two BDRs originating from the interim education committee (motions passed unanimously among members present). The AB217 hearing record shows broad public support in testimony and several stakeholders asking to work with the sponsor to address concerns about disciplinary or criminal penalties for school employees. The sponsor and staff said they will work with stakeholders on draft language and follow up data requested by members.

Why it matters: The proposal would change state law practice by clarifying that schools are protected “sensitive locations” for civil immigration enforcement absent a judicial warrant, and would add a state enforcement path for violations. Lawmakers will weigh questions of alignment with federal law, possible effects on school staff discipline procedures, and uniformity across districts.

Status: Hearing held; Section 2 deleted by amendment posted on NELIS; no final committee vote on the bill was recorded in the transcript. The sponsor indicated willingness to negotiate language addressing school‑district concerns about employee discipline.