PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 6, 2025
Protecting Sensitive Locations Act
This bill prohibits immigration enforcement actions within 1,000 feet of a sensitive location except in exigent circumstances, such as the imminent risk of death, violence, or physical harm to any person.
Sensitive locations include
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
health care facilities;
schools and school bus stops;
places that provide assistance for people such as children, pregnant women, and abuse victims;
child care facilities;
places that provide disaster or emergency services;
places of worship;
courthouses and lawyers’ offices;
facilities used as polling places;
certain labor union facilities; and
public assistance offices.
The prohibition shall apply to Department of Homeland Security officers and agents, as well as state employees pursuing immigration enforcement actions.
If an enforcement action is carried out in violation of this prohibition (1) no information resulting from the action may be entered into the record in a resulting removal proceeding, and (2) the affected individual may move to immediately terminate such a proceeding.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall annually report to Congress about enforcement actions taken at sensitive locations in the preceding year.
People & committees
Rep. Espaillat, Adriano [D-NY-13] · D–NY
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
Source last updated: Oct 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1061 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1061 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1061 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1061 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-06 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Protecting Sensitive Locations Act would restrict immigration enforcement around places people use for health care, education, worship, public services, and other activities. It would cover Department of Homeland Security personnel and people designated to perform immigration enforcement, with exceptions for specified threats and emergencies. It would also require oversight reports and give people facing deportation proceedings remedies when enforcement violates these restrictions.
This Act may be cited as the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act.
An enforcement action may not take place at, be focused on, or occur within, 1,000 feet of a sensitive location, except under exigent circumstances.
this subsection shall apply to any enforcement action by— (A) officers or agents of the Department of Homeland Security, including officers and agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection; and (B) any individual designated to perform immigration enforcement functions pursuant to subsection (g).
the alien who is the subject of such removal proceeding may file a motion for the immediate termination of the removal proceeding.
The Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall each submit to the appropriate committees of Congress each year a report
The bill would add restrictions to section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Covered immigration enforcement would include apprehensions, arrests, interviews, identification requests, searches, and surveillance, including covered actions in joint cases led by another law enforcement agency.
Section 287 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1357) is amended by adding at the end the following:
The term enforcement action means an apprehension, arrest, interview, request for identification, search, or surveillance for the purposes of immigration enforcement, and includes an enforcement action at, or focused on, a sensitive location that is part of a joint case led by another law enforcement agency.
The proposal would generally prohibit enforcement at, focused on, or within 1,000 feet of a sensitive location. Separately, its definition of a sensitive location already includes space within 1,000 feet of listed places. These overlapping distance provisions leave the intended outer boundary unclear.
An enforcement action may not take place at, be focused on, or occur within, 1,000 feet of a sensitive location, except under exigent circumstances.
The term sensitive location includes all of the physical space located within 1,000 feet of the following:
Protected places would include medical and mental health facilities, vaccination and testing sites, schools and colleges, early childhood programs, vocational schools, and sites where unemployed or underemployed people seek workforce training. Education-related events, including field trips, would also qualify.
(i) Any medical or mental healthcare facility, including any hospital, health care practitioner’s office, accredited health clinic, vaccination or testing site, or emergent or urgent care facility, or community health center. (ii) Public and private schools (including preschools, primary schools, secondary schools, and postsecondary schools (including colleges and universities)), sites of early childhood education programs, other institutions of learning, such as vocational or trade schools, and other sites where individuals who are unemployed or underemployed may apply for or receive workforce training. (iii) Any scholastic or education-related activity or event, including field trips and interscholastic events.
The proposal would also cover school buses and bus stops while schoolchildren are present, children's recreational facilities, child care facilities, foster care facilities, and group homes for children.
(iv) Any school bus or school bus stop during periods when school children are present on the bus or at the stop. (v) Any recreational facility for children such as playgrounds and formal recreational facilities. (vi) Any child care focused facilities including child care centers, before or after school care centers, foster care facilities, and group homes for children.
Disaster relief sites, temporary shelters, evacuation routes, and disaster assistance or family reunification registration sites would qualify. So would organizations assisting children, pregnant women, crime or abuse victims, people with significant disabilities, or people experiencing homelessness, along with the other listed social-service facilities.
Locations where disaster or emergency response and relief is being provided by Federal, State, or local entities, such as the distribution of emergency supplies, food, and water; places of temporary shelter; along evacuation routes; and sites where registration for disaster-related assistance or family reunification is underway.
Locations of any organization that— (I) assists children, pregnant women, victims of crime or abuse, or individuals with significant mental or physical disabilities, including domestic violence shelters, child advocacy centers, facilities that serve disabled persons, drug or alcohol counseling and treatment facilities, rape crisis centers, supervised visitation centers, family justice centers, victims’ services providers, and community-based organizations providing social services; or (II) provides disaster or emergency social services and assistance, or services for individuals experiencing homelessness, including food banks, pantries, or other establishments distributing food, and shelters.
Places of worship or religious study, including rented or temporary sites, would qualify. The proposal also covers funerals, weddings, other religious or civil ceremonies, and sites while public demonstrations such as marches, rallies, or parades are occurring.
(vii) Churches, synagogues, mosques, and other places of worship or religious study, such as buildings rented for the purpose of religious services, or a temporary facility or location where such activities are taking place. (viii) Sites of funerals, graveside ceremonies, weddings, or sites where other religious or civil ceremonies or observances occur. (ix) Sites during the occurrence of a public demonstration, such as a march, rally, or parade.
The listed locations also include courthouses, legal representatives' offices, probation offices, congressional district offices, Social Security offices, public assistance offices, and motor vehicle department premises. Public assistance locations include places to seek unemployment compensation or report labor-law violations.
(x) Any Federal, State, or local courthouse, including the office of an individual’s legal counsel or representative, and a probation office. (xi) Congressional district offices. (xii) Social Security offices. (xiii) Public assistance offices, including locations where individuals may apply for or receive unemployment compensation or report violations of labor and employment laws. (xiv) Indoor and outdoor premises of departments of motor vehicles.
Polling places, labor union halls, other union-operated job-referral buildings or offices described in the bill, and public libraries would qualify. The Secretary of Homeland Security could specify additional protected locations.
(xv) A polling place, which includes any building or infrastructure where voting takes place during an election. (xvi) A labor union hall or any other union-operated building or office where registered applicants are referred in rotation to jobs. (xvii) Any public library. (xviii) Such other locations as the Secretary of Homeland Security shall specify for purposes of this subsection.
The bill calls its exceptions “exigent circumstances.” These include imminent death, violence, or physical harm; immediate arrest or active pursuit of someone posing imminent public danger; a direct national-security threat; and imminent destruction of evidence important to an ongoing criminal case. The definition also includes certain rare, preplanned arrests approved in writing.
The term exigent circumstances means a situation involving any of the following: (i) The imminent risk of death, violence, or physical harm to any person, including a situation implicating terrorism or the national security of the United States in some other manner. (ii) The immediate arrest or hot pursuit of an individual presenting an imminent danger to public safety, including the imminent risk of death, violence, or physical harm to a person. (iii) A rare, premeditated arrest operation described in paragraph (3)(D), undertaken with the prior written approval of an appropriate authorizing official, involving the targeted arrest of a terrorist suspect, an individual who poses a clear threat to national security, or an individual who poses an extraordinary danger to public safety. (iv) A direct threat to national security. (v) The imminent risk of destruction of evidence that is material to an ongoing criminal case.
Enforcement relying on these circumstances would have to stop when they end and could resume when they reemerge. An officer uncertain whether they exist would have to stop immediately, consult a supervisor in real time, and wait for affirmative confirmation before continuing.
(B) If an immigration enforcement action is taking place under exigent circumstances, and the exigent circumstances permitting the enforcement action cease, the enforcement action shall be discontinued until such exigent circumstances reemerge. (C) If an individual referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) is not certain as to whether exigent circumstances exist, the individual shall cease the enforcement action immediately, consult with their supervisor in real time as to the existence of exigent circumstances, and shall not continue the enforcement action until the individual’s supervisor affirmatively confirms the existence of exigent circumstances.
During enforcement at or near a sensitive location, covered personnel would have to make every effort to act discreetly while protecting officer and public safety, limit their time there, and limit the action to people for whom prior approval was obtained.
When proceeding with an enforcement action at or near a sensitive location, individuals referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) shall make every effort— (i) to conduct themselves as discreetly as possible, consistent with officer and public safety; (ii) to limit the time spent at the sensitive location; and (iii) to limit the enforcement action to the person or persons for whom prior approval was obtained.
If an operation begun elsewhere leads personnel to or near a sensitive location without a clear qualifying circumstance, the bill directs them to stop before further enforcement, act discreetly, and maintain surveillance. If uncertain about qualifying circumstances, they must immediately consult a supervisor.
If, in the course of an enforcement action that is not initiated at or focused on a sensitive location, individuals referred to in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) are led to or near a sensitive location, and no clear exigent circumstance with respect to the sensitive location exists, such individuals shall— (i) cease before taking any further enforcement action; (ii) conduct themselves in a discreet manner; (iii) maintain surveillance; and (iv) in the event that uncertainty exists about the existence of exigent circumstances, immediately consult their supervisor in order to determine whether such enforcement action should be discontinued pursuant to paragraph (2)(C).
The proposed subsection would not apply to transporting someone apprehended at or near a land or sea border to a hospital or health care provider for medical care.
This subsection shall not apply to the transportation of an individual apprehended at or near a land or sea border to a hospital or health care provider for the purpose of providing such individual medical care.
The subsection also expressly excludes a rare, preplanned arrest operation approved in writing beforehand by an appropriate official. It must target a terrorism suspect, someone posing a clear national-security threat, or someone posing an extraordinary danger to public safety.
This subsection shall not apply to a rare premeditated arrest operation, undertaken with the prior written approval of an appropriate authorizing official, involving the targeted arrest of a terrorist suspect, an individual who poses a clear threat to national security, or an individual who poses an extraordinary danger to public safety.
The bill identifies officials who could approve those operations within Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, and allows the Secretary to designate others. For other covered personnel, approval officials would be defined by rules issued within 90 days after enactment of the subsection.
(i) In the case of officers and agents of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, one of the following officials: (I) The Assistant Director of Operations, Homeland Security Investigations. (II) The Executive Associate Director of Homeland Security Investigations. (III) The Assistant Director for Field Operations, Enforcement, and Removal Operations. (IV) The Executive Associate Director for Field Operations, Enforcement, and Removal Operations. (V) Any other individual who is determined to be an appropriate authorizing official by the Secretary of Homeland Security.
(ii) In the case of officers and agents of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, one of the following officials: (I) A Chief Patrol Agent. (II) The Director of Field Operations. (III) The Director of Air and Marine Operations. (IV) The Internal Affairs Special Agent in Charge. (V) Any other individual who is determined to be an appropriate authorizing official by the Secretary of Homeland Security. (iii) In the case of all other individuals referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), an official determined under rules promulgated by the Secretary of Homeland Security not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection.
If enforcement violates the subsection, information obtained from it could not enter the record or be used as evidence in a resulting removal proceeding—a proceeding to deport someone. The affected person could ask for immediate termination of that proceeding; the text does not make termination automatic.
If an enforcement action is carried out in violation of this subsection— (A) no information resulting from the enforcement action may be entered into the record or received into evidence in a removal proceeding resulting from the enforcement action; and (B) the alien who is the subject of such removal proceeding may file a motion for the immediate termination of the removal proceeding.
Specified officials in Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection would have to ensure annual training for employees they supervise. Training would cover the new restrictions and two existing statutory provisions referenced in the bill.
Each official specified in subparagraph (B) shall ensure that the employees under the supervision of such official receive annual training in compliance with the requirements of this subsection, section 239, and section 384 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 (8 U.S.C. 1367).
The officials specified in this subparagraph are the following: (i) The Chief Counsel of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (ii) The Field Office Directors of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (iii) Each Special Agent in Charge of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (iv) Each Chief Patrol Agent of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (v) The Director of Field Operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (vi) The Director of Air and Marine Operations of U.S. Customs and Border Protection. (vii) The Internal Affairs Special Agent in Charge of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
Within 30 days after each covered enforcement action at a sensitive location, the Secretary would have to report to the department's Inspector General and civil-rights office. Reports would identify the date, place, action, responsible personnel, justification, intended target, arrests, additional arrests and their reasons, and whether a supervisor was contacted. An appropriate congressional committee could request and receive a confidential or redacted copy.
Not later than 30 days after any enforcement action is taken at a sensitive location by any individual referred to in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1), the Secretary of Homeland Security shall provide a report to both the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security and the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties of the Department of Homeland Security for each of these individual enforcement actions
(i) The date, State, and local political subdivision (such as city, town, or county) in which each enforcement action occurred. (ii) The specific sensitive location site where the enforcement action occurred. (iii) The type of enforcement action that occurred. (iv) The specific department, agency, and officers responsible for the enforcement action. (v) A thorough description of the circumstances which purportedly justified the enforcement action
(vi) A description of the intended target of the enforcement action. (vii) The number of individuals, if any, arrested or taken into custody through the enforcement action. (viii) The number of collateral arrests, if any, from the enforcement action and the reasons for each such arrest. (ix) A certification of whether a supervisor was contacted prior to, during, or after each such enforcement action.
An appropriate committee of Congress shall, at any time, be able to request and successfully receive a confidential or redacted copy of one of the individual reports described in subparagraph (A).
The individual reports would need either a clear explanation of the qualifying circumstances or a certified copy of prior written arrest approval and an explanation of the specific, rare threat justifying the planned arrest.
including either— (I) a clear description of the exigent circumstances involved; or (II) a certified copy of the written approval for the immigration arrest that was signed by an appropriate authorizing officer, along with a clear description of the specific and rare threat which justified the premediated arrest at this sensitive location.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection would each report annually to the specified congressional committees on the previous year's covered operations. Reports would include operations at or focused on sensitive locations and those that later led personnel nearby, with dates, places, responsible agency components, intended targets, arrest counts, reasons for additional arrests, and whether a location administrator was contacted.
The Director of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall each submit to the appropriate committees of Congress each year a report on the enforcement actions undertaken by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, respectively, during the preceding year that were covered by this subsection.
(i) The number of enforcement actions at or focused on a sensitive location. (ii) The number of enforcement actions where officers or agents were subsequently led to or near a sensitive location. (iii) The date, site, State, and local political subdivision (such as city, town, or county) in which each enforcement action covered by clause (i) or (ii) occurred. (iv) The component of the agency responsible for each such enforcement action. (v) A description of the intended target of each such enforcement action. (vi) The number of individuals, if any, arrested or taken into custody through each such enforcement action. (vii) The number of collateral arrests, if any, from each such enforcement action and the reasons for each such arrest. (viii) A certification of whether the location administrator was contacted prior to, during, or after each such enforcement action.
The department's Inspector General would separately report annually to the specified congressional committees on complaints about covered operations in sensitive locations. The report would give complaint counts and reported details about locations, agencies, targets, and arrests, plus certification about contact with the location administrator if available.
The Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Homeland Security shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress each year a report on the complaints of enforcement actions taken in sensitive locations by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and U.S. Customs and Border Protection during the preceding year that were covered by this subsection.
(i) The number of complaints of enforcement actions reported at or focused on a sensitive location. (iii) The reported date, site, State, and local political subdivision (such as city, town, or county) in which each enforcement action covered was by clause (i) occurred. (iv) The reported agency responsible for each such enforcement action. (v) A description of the intended target of each such enforcement action. (vi) The reported number of individuals, if any, arrested or taken into custody through each such enforcement action. (vii) The reported number of collateral arrests, if any, from each such enforcement action and the reasons for each such arrest. (viii) If available, a certification of whether the location administrator was contacted prior to, during, or after each such enforcement action.
The amendment would take effect 90 days after enactment. The Secretary would have to issue implementing regulations within the same period and define who counts as a supervisor through rules issued within 90 days after enactment of the subsection.
The term supervisor means an official determined under rules promulgated by the Secretary of Homeland Security not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this subsection.
(b) Effective date The amendment made by subsection (a) shall take effect 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act. (c) Regulations Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Homeland Security shall promulgate regulations to carry out the amendment made by subsection (a).
The supplied official-actions snapshot, updated October 10, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Judiciary Committee on February 6, 2025. This snapshot does not establish whether later advancement or enactment occurred.
Source snapshot updated 2026-10-10T08:05:35Z. 2025-02-06: Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary. 2025-02-06: Introduced in House 2025-02-06: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-06. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark disclosures and accompanying materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text under the requested definition. The protections concern access to broadly available places and services, and the enforcement exceptions serve the main policy. This conclusion does not extend to other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Oct 10, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI