Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Campus Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Campus protections bill tied 7–7 after amendment debate; bill fails to advance
Summary
HF3411, which would limit certain federal immigration enforcement activities on Minnesota public college campuses and require institutions to provide information to students, was amended for definitions and guidance but failed a committee roll call 7–7 on final referral to Judiciary. Testimony from faculty, ACLU, and student groups supported the bill.
Vice Chair introduced House File 3411 as a measure to protect teaching and learning on Minnesota postsecondary campuses from disruptive federal immigration enforcement activity. The author described the bill as restoring a form of "sensitive‑locations" protection that had been in federal guidance for decades and that the revocation of that federal policy has increased fear and disruption on campuses.
The committee adopted an author’s amendment (A4) to clarify definitions (including a subdivision requiring institutions to provide more information to students at registration) and to state that the bill would not create personal liability for employees acting in good faith. Committee counsel clarified that line 2.3 in the amendment distinguishes judicially issued search warrants from administrative warrants; under the amendment institutions could refuse access to nonpublic campus areas on the basis of administrative warrants but not a judicial search warrant.
Representative Shorts offered a delete‑and‑replace amendment (DE1) requiring the commissioner of higher education, in consultation with the attorney general, to publish clear guidance for colleges and universities about how to handle law‑enforcement access, the difference between administrative and judicial warrants, and how those rules apply to various campus areas (buildings, parking lots, athletic facilities). Members debated whether the DE1 language duplicated the author’s amendment and whether creating statutory guidance would impose additional fiscal or operational burdens on institutions.
The committee took a roll‑call vote on DE1; the motion tied and the DE1 amendment failed. The hearing then received multiple public testimonies in favor of HF3411. Jenna Chenega, president of the IFO (faculty union), testified that faculty survey data showed significant student distress since the federal sensitive‑locations policy was revoked and that campus learning and workloads had been disrupted. A representative from the ACLU framed the bill as consistent with other states’ statutory protections and urged clarity between administrative and judicial warrants; student leaders from Minnesota State reported reduced utilization of student services and enrollment declines after enforcement activity.
Members questioned fiscal and operational impacts, whether the bill would impede cooperation with law enforcement in emergencies or active pursuits, and whether the state can meaningfully restrict federal officer conduct. Authors repeatedly emphasized that the bill governs institutional actions and policies (permission, notification, and limits on where officers may go without proper judicial process), and does not regulate federal agencies’ operations.
Vice Chair moved that HF3411 as amended be referred to the Judiciary Committee. The roll call on the motion produced a 7–7 tie and the motion did not prevail; HF3411 did not advance out of committee. The committee adjourned.
Next steps: HF3411 failed to clear the Committee on this date; sponsors and stakeholders may revise language and reintroduce the proposal in future committee days.
