On Thursday April 24, 2025 the House will hold a hearing on bills HB 4338-4342. Click to see MIRC’s summary and analysis of each bill: HB 4338, HB 4339, HB 4340, HB 4341, and HB 4342
MIRC strongly opposes these bills. We encourage you to voice your opposition to Michigan legislators.
- Attend the hearing or give testimony
House Committee on Government Operations
Date: Thursday, April 24, 2025
Time: 9:00 AM
Location: Room 307, Anderson House Office Building, 124 N Capitol Ave, Lansing, MI 48933
Contact: Keith Feldpausch, Committee Clerk, 517-373-1260, kfeldpausch@house.mi.gov
- Contact your elected officials.
Find your Michigan State Representative
Find your Michigan State Senator
HB 4338 “Local Government Sanctuary Policy Prohibition Act”
Primary Sponsor: Cavitt
Bill Status: Referred to the House Government Operations Committee:
Bill Summary:
As introduced, this bill would prevent any local unit of government–city, village, charter township, township–including officers/officials and boards, departments, commissions, councils, agencies, or bodies within that local unit of government from enacting or enforcing any law that prohibits communication or cooperation between federal officials and that local unit of government as it relates to the immigration status of a person within the state of Michigan.
Immediately following a 60-day grace period, the bill provides for enforcement through litigation brought by either individual citizens or the Attorney General. Specifically, the bill allows any individual resident of a local unit of government to sue in state court if they believe the officer/official enacted or otherwise prohibited communication and cooperation between federal officials and the local unit as it relates to sharing immigration status information..
The bill provides for mandatory remedies if a violation is found, including: (1) an injunction restraining the local unit of government from enforcing the law, ordinance, policy, or rule; (2) mandatory repeal of the law, ordinance, policy, or rule, and (3) an award of actual damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees to the party challenging the law, ordinance, policy, or rule.
Background and Analysis:
Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the federal government cannot force states (or local governments, as political subdivisions of the state) to enforce a federal law or implement a federal program or regulation. Nor can the federal government tie state or local participation to a federal grant program if the grant is so vital that the risk of losing it would be a “coercive condition.” This is why, for example, there cannot be a federal mandate to require state or local officials to take specific enforcement actions with respect to immigration.
This bill attempts to circumvent the Tenth Amendment by instead focusing, without referencing directly 8 USC § 1373, on the voluntary sharing of information of immigration status information with the federal government. Specifically, 8 USC § 1373 says that no state or local official can force or prohibit any other state or local official from providing voluntary communication about immigration information to the federal authorities. It does not mandate cooperation on sharing information. In fact, 8 USC § 1373 does not require that any local unit of government, nor sub-unit, nor officer/official, ask about immigration status or compel collection of that information.
From a fiscal perspective, this bill exposes public officials to litigation both from supporters and from individuals who may be harmed by the bill. And, by design, the bill would subject local governments to costly litigation from anti-immigrant individuals and groups who do not perceive that their local units of government are engaging in sufficient communicating and cooperation with ICE when none is actually required. "Communication and cooperation" is a concept that is not defined in this bill or in federal law. No one knows what that term means. So, that litigation would likely be complex and costly.
Some Michigan communities lawfully limit communication and cooperation with ICE in their local codes and many Michigan communities have administrative policies put in place by local law enforcement leadership that this bill would seek to outlaw and punish. For example, in 2018, the Kent County Sheriff's Department stated it had a new policy of requiring ICE to provide a federal judicial warrant if ICE wanted the county to hold an individual in a county facility for ICE. This policy change came after ICE asked the Sheriff to detain a Michigan-born United States citizen and decorated military combat veteran, alleging he was potentially subject to deportation. The policy is completely legal under current state and federal law, because holding individuals for ICE is optional for local governments. Under this bill, a local unit of government, like a police officer,, firmly grounded in their clear right under federal law to decline to share immigration information that it does not collect, could be alleged to be unlawful as a limit on "cooperation." Any resident could sue their local jurisdiction alleging that a wide variety of perfectly legal local resource and community relations decisions relating to immigration fail to rise to the level of "communication and cooperation" that resident believes is required by this bill. Doing so would result in considerable legal fees and a determination that the police department is well within their right to decline federal co-option.
ICE remains completely free–and has substantial and ever-growing resources–to operate in communities that have adopted policies limiting information sharing. There is no fiscal, constitutional, or prudential reason to support a bill that exposes local units of government to costly litigation that will ultimately be moot when it is determined that collecting immigration status information is deemed optional to begin with. Rather, this bill seeks to take autonomy from local elected officials and co-opt the valuable resources of our local governments for President Trump's ever expanding mass deportation agenda.
MIRC position: MIRC strongly opposes this bill.
HB 4339 “County Law Enforcement Protection Act”
Primary Sponsor: Pavlov
Bill Status: Referred to the House Government Operations Committee:
Bill Summary:
As introduced, this bill would prevent any county–including officers/officials and boards, departments, commissions, councils, agencies, or bodies within that county from enacting or enforcing any law that prohibits communication or cooperation between federal officials and that county as it relates to the immigration status of a person within the state of Michigan.
Immediately following a 60-day grace period, the bill provides for enforcement through litigation brought by either individual citizens or the Attorney General. Specifically, the bill allows any individual resident of the county to sue in state court if they believe the officer/official enacted or otherwise prohibited communication and cooperation between federal officials and the county as it relates to sharing immigration status information..
The bill provides for mandatory remedies if a violation is found, including: (1) an injunction restraining the county from enforcing the law, ordinance, policy, or rule; (2) mandatory repeal of the law, ordinance, policy, or rule, and (3) an award of actual damages, costs, and reasonable attorney fees to the party challenging the law, ordinance, policy, or rule.
Background and Analysis:
MIRC reincorporates its background and analysis from HB 4338 and substitutes the term “county” for “local unit of government.”
MIRC position: MIRC strongly opposes this bill.
HB 4340 Prohibits non-citizens (or “non-qualified aliens”) from receiving services or grants or participating in any social welfare program.
Primary Sponsor: Linting
Bill Status: Referred to the House Government Operations Committee:
Bill Summary:
This bill, as introduced, provides a caveat for individuals who receive services under the “Social Welfare Act” to be limited to U.S. citizens and “qualified aliens,” as that term is defined under federal law, 8 USC § 1641.
Background and Analysis:
Since the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Act of 1996 (Clinton welfare reforms), most noncitizens remain ineligible for federal means-tested public benefits like food assistance, Medicaid, cash assistance, and more. There are certain immigration status exceptions that include “qualified aliens” like trafficking victims, refugees, asylees, and long-time permanent residents (green card holders). The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services has used the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) database to verify eligibility documentation since that time pursuant to federal law. Thus, expressly indicating that services and benefits are only available to U.S. citizens and qualified aliens is duplicative and could lead to confusion.
MIRC position: MIRC opposes this bill
HB 4341 Prohibits non-citizens (or “non-qualified aliens”) from receiving services or grants or participating in any state housing development authority services.
Primary Sponsor: Thompson
Bill Status: Referred to the House Government Operations Committee
Bill Summary: Except as otherwise provided under federal law, an individual shall not receive services or grants or participate in any program under this act unless the individual is a United States citizen or a qualified alien as that term is defined at 8 U.S. C. Section 1641.
Background and Analysis: Most state and federal housing programs are already limited to qualified aliens, though some do allow prorating because of the reality of mixed immigration status families. Homelessness affects the entire community regardless of the immigration status of those who are unhoused, and some temporary supports are needed as refugees and other new arrivals struggle to establish new lives and employment without access to other programs.
MIRC position: Oppose
HB 4342 Withholds state funds from local governments who violate “local government sanctuary policy prohibition act” or the “county law enforcement protection act;” Tie-bared to HB 4338 and HB 4339.
Primary Sponsor: DeSana
Bill Status: Referred to the House Government Operations Committee:
Bill Summary: The tie-barred HB 4338 states that “a local unit of government shall not enact or enforce any law, ordinance, policy, or rule that limits or prohibits a peace officer or local official, officer, or employee from communicating or cooperating with appropriate federal officials concerning the immigration status of an individual in this state. Any law, ordinance, policy, or rule that violates this act is void and unenforceable.” It creates a complaint process through the Attorney General as well as a private right of action to enforce. HB 4342 directs the state treasurer to withhold state funds from local governments in violation of HB 4338.
Background and Analysis: The Sanctuary Policy Prohibition Act reduces the ability of local communities to make local decisions to focus on public safety and build trust between immigrants and law enforcement. MIRC is not aware of any sanctuary policy in Michigan that violates any federal law; this state effort to override otherwise-permissible local resource and priority decisions and defund communities is overreach.
MIRC position: MIRC opposes this bill
