Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assembly passes immigrant‑protection measures for health care and schools (SB 81, SB 98)
Summary
The Assembly passed SB 81 (limits immigration agent access to non‑public areas of health care facilities without a judicial warrant) and SB 98 (requires school and campus notification when immigration enforcement is present). Both bills were passed on votes requiring supermajorities and sent to the Senate for transmittal.
The California Assembly on Aug. 20 passed a package of bills aimed at protecting immigrant communities' access to health care and education. SB 81, floor‑managed by Assemblymember Ortega on behalf of Senator Arreguin, bars immigration enforcement from entering non‑public areas of hospitals and clinics unless they present a valid judicial warrant or court order. Ortega said the change is needed after incidents where enforcement activity impeded patient care.
"Immigration enforcement has no business in our hospitals and our clinics," Ortega said on the floor, citing reported incidents at a Los Angeles hospital and patient mistreatment.
SB 98 (the SAFE Act), presented by Assemblymember Muratsuchi for Senator Perez, requires K‑12 schools and institutions of higher education to add procedures to safety plans to notify parents, staff and campus communities when immigration enforcement activity is confirmed on a site. Supporters said notification protects students and families and preserves a safe learning environment.
Both bills cleared the Assembly on recorded votes. SB 81, a 54‑vote bill, passed with 'ayes 54, noes 10' and immediate transmittal to the Senate was requested. SB 98 passed by a similar margin ('ayes 54, noes 8') and was also sent to the Senate for transmittal. Sponsors said the measures seek to strengthen patient privacy, clarify institutional obligations and reduce chilling effects that deter people from seeking care or attending school.
Opponents and some members raised concerns about potential unintended consequences for law enforcement coordination and about the bills' interaction with federal immigration enforcement; those concerns were voiced in floor debate but did not prevent passage. The bills specify notification and warrant requirements; implementation details and any guidance for local agencies will follow in administrative guidance or future implementing legislation.
