Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sensitive Locations topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears wide support for LB 907 to require judicial warrants for ICE entry into schools, hospitals and other ‘sensitive locations’
Summary
LB 907 would require immigration-enforcement officers to have a judicial warrant before entering non‑public areas of schools, hospitals, shelters, courthouses and places of worship; dozens of social-service providers, educators, faith leaders and civil‑rights groups testified the bill would protect attendance, health access and victims of abuse.
Lincoln — Lawmakers heard lengthy testimony March 3 on LB 907, a bill to codify in state statute a judicial‑warrant requirement for immigration‑enforcement entry into designated community “safe spaces” such as schools, hospitals, childcare facilities, libraries, courthouses, emergency‑response sites, domestic‑violence and homeless shelters, and places of worship.
Sponsor Senator Margo Juarez told the committee the measure aims to address a “chilling effect” she said has followed rescissions to prior federal sensitive‑locations guidance. The bill does not bar enforcement, Juarez said; it requires a judicial warrant — signed by a neutral magistrate on probable cause — before enforcement officers may enter non‑public areas of those locations.
Who testified: The hearing featured many opponents of warrantless entries and advocates urging the bill’s passage. Heartland Family Service, domestic‑violence advocates, school officials, pediatric and mental‑health professionals, clergy and immigrant‑advocacy organizations described families avoiding schools, delaying medical care, and not reporting crimes because of fear of enforcement in those settings. Witnesses said attendance, prosecution of abuse, and public health all suffer when essential community spaces are perceived as unsafe.
Legal and practical points: Supporters emphasized the distinction between administrative documents issued by ICE and judicial warrants issued by a judge, and urged the committee to include clear standards for exigent circumstances. Several proponents cited legal precedent and practice in other states that require judicial oversight for sensitive searches and argued the bill would not be preempted by federal law because it regulates access to state institutions rather than immigration status.
Representative examples on the record: Heartland Family Service described how survivors of domestic violence avoid hospitals and shelters for fear of immigration consequences; school and nonprofit witnesses said children have missed class because parents fear enforcement near schools. Several witnesses urged stronger enforcement language, accountability mechanisms, or civil remedies for unlawful entries; sponsors said they are open to drafting amendments.
What’s next: Supporters urged rapid advancement to general file. The committee did not vote. Chair Bosin closed the session after a long day of testimony; the bill remains pending.
