Committee tables bill that would bar voluntary consent for immigration enforcement at schools, hospitals and libraries

The Judiciary Committee tabled LD 2106 after extensive questioning about scope, constitutional and federal-law limits, and practical enforcement. The bill would prohibit persons acting on behalf of specified facilities — public schools and public postsecondary institutions, health-care facilities, child-care providers, and public libraries — from voluntarily consenting to law enforcement entry into certain nonpublic areas or voluntary access to specified records when the officer is "engaged in immigration enforcement," while preserving compliance with valid judicial warrants and exigent circumstances.

Legislative analyst Janet Stilko laid out the statutory mechanics and legal tension points: federal immigration statutes and administrative regulations allow certain actions (for example, administrative warrants and I-9 worksite inspections with notice) and the Fourth Amendment imposes limits tied to reasonable expectations of privacy. Stilko also noted multiple overlapping confidentiality regimes — FERPA for education records, HIPAA and the Maine Title 22 analog for health records, and library-record confidentiality statutes — and urged the committee to consider how the bill’s terms would interact with those laws.

Hospital and provider representatives raised practical concerns about compliance and enforcement mechanics. A representative of the Maine Hospital Association said health-care facilities could face license-based enforcement risk and noted the bill as written blends policy and implementation details; the association urged precision so hospitals and smaller facilities can comply without jeopardizing patient care or statutory obligations such as I-9 audits.

Immigration advocates and an immigration attorney from the Immigrant Legal Advocacy Project backed a broad prohibition on voluntary consent as a way to protect access to sensitive locations while allowing necessary compliance activities to proceed under lawful processes. “This is about ensuring there is a lawful justification for immigration enforcement to happen at trusted and sensitive locations,” the attorney said.

Committee members requested additional drafting and clarifications: whether the restriction should apply only to state-licensed or state-funded entities, how to define “nonpublic area,” whether to enumerate exceptions (for example, I-9 inspections, subpoena compliance, or medical escort in exigent medical circumstances) or simply prohibit voluntary consent and rely on model policies, and what interim protections staff should have before the attorney general issues model rules. Several members asked for comparisons to other states that have adopted sensitive-location laws or executive orders and whether those laws have faced legal challenge.

At the end of the session, Representative Henderson moved to table LD 2106 so the sponsor and stakeholders could work with the legislative analyst on amendment language; the motion was seconded and adopted unanimously of those present. The bill will return to committee after further drafting and stakeholder engagement.