Michigan Senate Committee Sends Immigration Accountability Bills to Full Chamber for Vote

Senate Committee Passes Three Bills Limiting Federal Immigration Enforcement Actions

LANSING — The Michigan Senate Committee on Civil Rights, Judiciary, and Public Safety voted along party lines on Wednesday to send three immigration accountability bills to the full Senate for consideration. The legislation seeks to limit how federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, operates within Michigan.

The package includes three bills: SB 508, which would prohibit law enforcement officers from conducting immigration enforcement activities in certain sensitive locations; SB 509, which would bar government entities from disclosing personal information to immigration authorities without a warrant; and SB 510, which would ban law enforcement officers from wearing masks or face coverings when policing, with limited exceptions.

The committee voted 15-10 to report the legislation to the full Senate, with Democrats supporting the measures and Republicans opposed. The bills were introduced by Senate Majority Floor Leader Stephanie Chang, a Democrat from Detroit, who chairs the committee.

Sensitive Locations and Enforcement Limits

SB 508 would designate certain locations as immigration-enforcement-free zones, including places of worship, schools, hospitals, courthouses, and religious ceremonies. The bill also would extend protections to organizations that provide support for victims of crimes.

Under the legislation, immigration enforcement activities in these protected locations could only occur with a court order. The measure aims to ensure that essential community spaces remain safe for all residents regardless of immigration status.

The committee heard testimony from community leaders and advocates during a January 29 hearing on the bills. Jeni Hooper, with First Step, a shelter for survivors of sexual and domestic violence in Wayne County, told the committee that fear of immigration enforcement has disrupted services to victims.

"When safe spaces, like domestic violence agencies, shelters, schools, courts and schools are not clearly protected, survivors face an impossible choice," Hooper said.

Data Privacy and Law Enforcement Transparency

SB 509 would require a court-issued warrant before state and local government entities could share personal information with immigration authorities for immigration enforcement purposes. The bill seeks to protect the privacy of individuals and ensure that government agencies do not become partners in immigration enforcement without judicial oversight.

The measure also would prevent state agencies from proactively sharing data that could be used for immigration enforcement, except in cases where there is probable cause of a crime and appropriate legal procedures have been followed.

Former Detroit Police Chief Ike McKinnon testified that masked officers undermine faith in law enforcement. "They can basically do what they want to and the people of that respective community do not know who they are," McKinnon said. "This is scary."

The mask ban provision in SB 510 would apply to all law enforcement officers conducting visible police work, with exceptions for undercover assignments or situations involving protection from facial injuries, airborne pathogens, or toxins.

Opposition and Constitutional Concerns

Shari Rendell, state and local engagement director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, testified in opposition of the legislation. FAIR is a Massachusetts-based nonprofit organization which broadly opposes immigration in the United States.

Rendell argued that measures setting state parameters on federal agents likely would be rendered moot by the Supremacy Clause, a constitutional framework that asserts federal law supersedes state law when applicable.

"Courthouses are not sensitive locations," Rendell said. "ICE knows that individuals in locations like a courthouse are unarmed. It is safer for the individual, it is safer for law enforcement, it is safer for the public for them to take someone into custody there."

Republican committee member Jim Runestad, who is also chair of the Michigan Republican Party, defended ICE and said the hearing was skewed toward those opposing immigration enforcement.

"The reality is that I don't think there is a person in Lansing who has a problem with legal immigration. This is strictly about illegal immigration," Runestad said.

Polling and Public Opinion

A new poll released by the ACLU of Michigan found that a majority of Michiganders support state legislation that would rein in ICE and protect communities from federal immigration enforcement. The survey showed significant public concern about immigration enforcement tactics and the need for state-level protections.

The polling comes amid heightened national attention on immigration enforcement following incidents in Minnesota where ICE agents fatally shot two U.S. citizens in January 2026. The killings drew scrutiny from many across the country and led to increased calls for accountability measures.

President Donald Trump has sought to de-escalate the situation in Minnesota following the shootings, though a recent shake-up of immigration enforcement leadership in the state was not described as a pullback of overall enforcement efforts.

Next Steps

Senator Stephanie Chang indicated that there will likely be a vote on reporting the bills to the full Senate for consideration at a future hearing. The legislation now faces the Republican-controlled Michigan House, where Democrats have historically struggled to advance immigration-related measures.

The bills would add to a growing body of state-level immigration accountability legislation across the country. Several other states have passed similar measures limiting ICE operations in sensitive locations and requiring warrants for data sharing.

The Michigan Senate is currently controlled by Democrats with a narrow 19-18 majority, making party-line votes on contentious issues particularly significant. The immigration bills represent an effort by Senate Democrats to assert state-level authority over federal immigration enforcement while protecting vulnerable communities.