A federal agent wears a badge of Immigration and Customs Enforcement while standing outside an immigration courtroom at the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building in New York, Tuesday, June 10, 2025. (AP Photo/Yuki Iwamura)
- The penalty for limiting, restricting, banning or interfering with the enforcement of federal immigration laws would be the loss of a political subdivision’s sovereign immunity.
The Mississippi House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation late last week requiring local and state law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration authorities.
The bill, HB 538, forbids state and local governments or any political subdivision in Mississippi, including law enforcement agencies, from enacting policies that impede federal immigration enforcement. It amends current law that bans “sanctuary” cities, localities that protect illegal immigrants from federal agents, such as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), to include the new language.
During debate on Thursday, proponents clashed with those who argued that the bill is too vague and too broad.
State Rep. Joey Hood (R), chairman of the House Judiciary A Committee, said the bill is not forcing state and local government officials to enforce immigration laws.
“It’s just saying they cannot get in the way or interfere,” he told the House, adding that the measure is meant to ensure cooperation with federal immigration officials.
State Rep. Jeffery Harness (D) argued the bill’s language is ambiguous and questioned the constitutionality of recent ICE activities.
“What you’re saying is that if I am outside the Capitol building walking around and I see ICE agents brutalizing a citizen, and I come to their aid and I’m a Jackson police officer, I lose my protection. I lose sovereign immunity. That puts the city or town on the hook. Is that what’s you’re saying?” Harness said.
Horan responded by saying the bill merely outlines that persons within state and local governments cannot limit, restrict, ban or interfere with the enforcement of federal immigration laws. This includes state agencies, counties, municipalities, colleges and universities, and law enforcement agencies. The penalty for doing so would be the loss of a political subdivision’s sovereign immunity.
House Minority Leader State Rep. Robert Johnson (D) said the bill mandates cooperation with ICE’s “enforcement” without stating that it must be “lawful enforcement” of the law, contending that ICE actions nationally have raised questions of lawful enforcement.
“You don’t say that it has to be lawful enforcement, you just say if you interfere with them while they’re trying to enforce the law even if they are violating the law,” Johnson said.
“We are going to let ICE do what they are allowed to do,” said Hood.
State Rep. Bryant Clark (D) said the bill violates state law, arguing that the language allows ICE access to medical records and private information, even at the Department of Revenue.
“University Medical Center, a state agency. ICE show up and want medical records. The law says they can’t get them, but if they refuse to turn over your medical records, my medical records, they’re in violation of this law,” Clark claimed.
Clark and State Rep. Omeria Scott (D) offered an amendment that would have added the word “unlawfully” before interferes, “lawful” before enforcement, and “illegal” before aliens. Clark called the measure “a snake.”
In explaining the amendment, Clark said, “If [local law enforcement] see a rogue ICE agent doing something, they do not have to violate the oath that they took and assist that ICE agent. That’s the only thing that this amendment does.”
The amendment failed 43 to 71.
The measure went on to pass in the House by a vote of 77 to 40. It now heads to the state Senate for further consideration.
